# Final Requirements-School Improvement Grants-Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2015-02570 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** February 9, 2015 - **Citation:** 80 FR 7224 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter II [Docket ID ED-2014-OESE-0079; CFDA Number: 84.377A] RIN 1810-AB22 Final Requirements—School Improvement Grants—Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education (Department). ACTION: Final requirements. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education adopts final requirements for the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program, authorized under section 1003(g) of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). These final requirements make changes to the current SIG program requirements and implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, that allows local educational agencies (LEAs) to implement additional interventions, provides flexibility for rural LEAs, and extends the grant period from three to five years. Additionally, the final requirements make changes that reflect lessons learned from four years of SIG implementation. DATES: These requirements are effective March 11, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Ross, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3C116, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-8961 or by email: Elizabeth.Ross@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: Executive Summary Purpose of This Regulatory Action: These final requirements implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, to allow LEAs to implement evidence-based, whole-school reform strategies and State-determined school improvement intervention models, to provide flexibility for rural LEAs implementing a SIG intervention, and to extend the allowable grant period from three to five years. Additionally, the final requirements make changes that reflect lessons learned from four years of SIG implementation. This regulatory action is authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and 20 U.S.C. 6303(g). Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: As discussed in more depth in the notice of proposed requirements (NPR) published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2014 (79 FR 53254), the Department makes the following revisions to the current SIG requirements to implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014: Allowing five-year SIG awards; adding State-determined school improvement intervention models; adding evidence-based, whole-school reform models; and allowing rural LEAs to modify one SIG intervention model element. The Department also revises the current SIG requirements to strengthen program implementation based on lessons learned and input from stakeholders by: Adding an intervention model that focuses on improving educational outcomes in preschool and early grades; adding an LEA requirement to demonstrate the appropriateness of the chosen intervention model and to take into consideration family and community input in the selection of the model; adding an LEA requirement to continuously engage families and the community throughout implementation; adding an LEA requirement to monitor and support intervention implementation; adding an LEA requirement to regularly review external providers' performance and hold external providers accountable; eliminating the “rule of nine”; and revising reporting requirements. The Department also made revisions to clarify the current SIG requirements: Modifying the teacher and principal evaluation and support system requirements under the transformation model; clarifying the rigorous review process under the restart model; clarifying renewal criteria; defining “greatest need” to include priority and focus schools for SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility requests; clarifying the timeline under which previously implemented interventions (in whole or in part) may continue as part of a SIG intervention; and clarifying requirements related to the posting of LEAs' SIG applications. Additionally, the Department has removed references to fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 funds and the differentiated accountability pilot because those references are no longer necessary. Finally, and as described in more detail in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this notice, the Department has made three additional changes to the proposed requirements in these final requirements in response to comments. First, the Department has clarified the name of the evidence-based, whole-school reform model. Second, the Department has clarified that an SEA may take into account, in awarding SIG funds, the extent to which an LEA demonstrates that it will implement one or more evidence-based strategies as part of the intervention model. Third, the Department has modified the definition of “whole-school reform model developer” to eliminate the provision that allowed an entity or individual to serve as a whole-school reform model developer if it had a high-quality plan for implementation and to require a developer to have a record of success implementing a whole-school reform model in a low-performing school and to be selected through a rigorous review process that includes a determination that the entity or individual is likely to produce strong results for the school. Finally, and as described in more detail in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this notice, the Department has made two other changes to the proposed requirements based on the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which Congress enacted after the publication of the NPR. First, the Department has aligned the requirement for evidence of effectiveness in the evidence-based, whole-school reform model with the definition of “moderate level of evidence” in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations, specifically by requiring that evidence of effectiveness include at least one study, rather than two studies, that meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards. Second, the Department has modified the State-determined model to require that an SEA's proposed model meet the definition of “whole-school reform model.” Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs to SEAs and LEAs, which would be financed with grant funds. The benefits of this action will be more effective State and local actions, using Federal funds, to turn around their lowest-performing schools and achieve significant improvement in educational outcomes for the students attending those schools. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this document for a more detailed discussion of costs and benefits. Consistent with Executive Order 12866, the Secretary has determined that this action is economically significant and, thus, is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the order. Purpose of Program: In conjunction with title I funds for school improvement reserved under section 1003(a) of the ESEA, SIG funds under section 1003(g) of the ESEA are used to improve student achievement in title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring so as to enable those schools to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) and exit improvement status. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6303(g); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76). We published a notice of proposed requirements for this program in the Federal Register on September 8, 2014 (79 FR 53254). That notice contained background information and our reasons for the revisions to the existing SIG requirements. There are differences between the proposed requirements and these final requirements as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in this notice. Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPR, 235 parties submitted comments on the proposed requirements. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed requirements. Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the requirements since publication of the notice of proposed requirements follows. Allowing Five-Year Grant Awards Comment: Many commenters supported the proposal to allow an SEA to make a SIG award to an LEA for up to five years, including the Department's proposal to permit an LEA to use one year for planning and other pre-implementation activities. Many of these commenters stated that they believed a planning year would provide LEAs with needed additional time and resources to prepare for school turnaround efforts and would lead to increased sustainability of reforms among schools receiving SIG funds. One commenter recommended allowing an LEA to use SIG funds for two years of planning and pre-implementation activities, rather than one year. Discussion: We appreciate the strong support for the proposal to allow grant awards of up to five years, consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and agree with the commenters that planning is imperative to successful implementation of turnaround strategies. We believe one year of funding is sufficient for planning purposes under the SIG program, which is intended not to serve as a long-term funding stream but, rather, to provide a short-term infusion of funds for comprehensive and rapid school turnaround. We note, however, that an LEA may also use SIG funds for the planning or other pre-implementation activities it undertakes between the time it receives a SIG award and the beginning of the first grant year. Changes: None. Comment: Two commenters requested that we allow an LEA to use SIG funds during the planning period for activities that involve assessing and addressing issues with the schools that feed students into an eligible school. Discussion: Under section 1003(g) of the ESEA and section I.A.1 of these final requirements, an LEA may use SIG funds only in a SIG-eligible school. It may not use SIG funds to serve a school not receiving a SIG grant that feeds students into a SIG eligible school. Of course, if a school that feeds students into a SIG-eligible school is itself eligible for SIG funds, an LEA may separately seek SIG funds to support interventions in that school. Changes: None. Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Department require LEAs to undertake needs analyses during a planning year. One such commenter suggested that if an LEA chooses to use the first year of its SIG award for planning, that LEA should require all SIG schools to conduct both comprehensive diagnostic needs and capacity assessments to serve as the basis for targeting student supports. Another commenter recommended that the Department require LEAs to provide evidence that they conducted an asset analysis prior to implementation, in order to identify the skills, people, and organizations in the community that can contribute resources and expertise in the design of the selected intervention. Another commenter suggested including, as part of the needs analysis, an analysis of the health needs of the community. Another commenter recommended requiring an SEA, either before or during the planning year, to assess the school's and LEA's performance and capacity to implement a SIG model in order to determine whether the LEA is able to make changes to support implementation. That commenter asked the Department to provide specific tools or criteria to support an SEA's assessment of district readiness. Finally, one commenter recommended strengthening the monitoring of both LEAs and of schools, including an assessment of LEA capacity during a planning year or pre-implementation period to ensure that the LEA is making the changes needed to support full and effective implementation of the selected model. Discussion: We agree that an LEA should identify the needs of the individual schools it proposes to serve with SIG funds. Under section I.A.4(a)(1), each LEA applying to implement a SIG model in a school must use a needs analysis to ensure that the intervention to be implemented in the school will meet the specific needs of the school, which may include needs for academic and non-academic support. We do not believe it is necessary to require additional needs analyses, capacity assessments, or corresponding monitoring because the needs assessment requirement in section I.A.4(a)(1) is sufficient to ensure that each LEA reviews the particular needs in its schools. Although the needs analysis required under section I.A.4(a)(1) must be conducted as part of the application process and prior to receipt of SIG funds, an LEA may use the SIG funds it receives to conduct additional needs assessment activities, including, for example, more comprehensive diagnostic analyses, capacity and asset assessments, and assessments of students' health needs, so long as those activities are a part of the LEA's approved SIG application, are related to the implementation of the SIG model, and are reasonable and necessary. Additionally, an SEA may use its section 1003(a) funds or the SIG funds it reserves for administration, evaluation, and technical assistance expenses to support the costs of needs analyses by its LEAs with SIG schools. Because not all LEAs will benefit from each of these activities, we decline to require them. We also agree that an SEA should continue to monitor and work with its LEAs and schools to ensure they possess the capacity to implement a SIG model prior to awarding funds, including by providing specific tools that an LEA can use in assessing and building capacity. To that end, we note that, under section I.A.4(b), an SEA must consider the LEA's capacity to implement the chosen intervention and may only fund an LEA that it determines can implement fully and effectively the chosen intervention. Changes: None. Comment: Two commenters requested that the Department clarify the deadline by which an LEA implementing the turnaround or transformation model must replace the principal if the LEA receives funds for a planning year. Discussion: Under section I.A.4(a)(3), an LEA implementing the turnaround or transformation model in a school must replace the principal prior to the start of the first year of full implementation of the chosen SIG model. Accordingly, an LEA receiving a SIG award that includes a year of planning must replace the principal prior to the start of the first year of full implementation ( i.e., prior to the start of the second grant year). That said, we strongly encourage an LEA implementing the turnaround or transformation model to replace the school's principal as early as possible (consistent with applicable State and local laws and requirements) so that the incoming principal can prepare to lead the full and effective implementation of the model in the school. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked if an LEA may use the planning year to identify the model it will implement in a school. Discussion: An LEA must identify the SIG model it intends to implement in a school in its application to the SEA. The planning year is intended to provide the LEA with time and resources to prepare to fully implement that specific model. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department clarify, in light of the authority for SEAs to make SIG awards for up to five years, the maximum amount of SIG funds an LEA may receive per year per school; and several commenters requested that the Department clarify whether the annual per-school cap of $2 million allows an LEA to receive up to $10 million for a school implementing a model over five years. One commenter also recommended that the Department specify the maximum amount of funds that an LEA may use for both a year of planning and pre-implementation activities and for a year of activities to sustain reforms following full implementation. Discussion: Section II.B.8 permits an LEA to receive up to $2 million per year per each school implementing an intervention model. Accordingly, an LEA may receive up to $10 million total for such a school over five years. We do not believe it is worthwhile to place a limit on the amount of SIG funds an LEA may use for a year of planning and pre-implementation activities or for a year of activities to sustain reforms following full implementation, and would expect that in either case the amount needed by an LEA is significantly less than the $2 million per year that it is eligible to receive. We remind SEAs and LEAs that an LEA may receive funds only for activities that are a part of the LEA's approved SIG application, are related to the implementation of the SIG model, and are reasonable and necessary. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked whether the Department will require SEAs to frontload SIG awards to LEAs or whether SEAs could provide the first year of funding from fiscal year 2014 SIG funds and make annual continuation awards thereafter. Discussion: The Department does not require an SEA to frontload SIG awards. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters suggested that the Department allow SEAs to provide more than five years of SIG funding to an LEA for a school. Another commenter suggested allowing two one-year renewal periods in addition to the five-year award permitted under the proposed requirements. Another commenter recommended that, for purposes of sustainability, an SEA should be permitted to renew an LEA's SIG award for each school for up to four additional one-year periods after at least three years of full intervention implementation. This commenter also recommended reducing the level of funding for each subsequent, additional one-year period, in order to support sustainability. Discussion: Through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Congress allows SEAs to make SIG awards to LEAs for up to five years per school, notwithstanding section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the ESEA, which allows LEAs to receive two years of SIG funds, in addition to the currently allowable three years, for a school if the school is meeting improvement goals. Therefore, the Department cannot allow an SEA to make SIG awards beyond a five-year period, which includes any renewal years. Moreover, the goal of the SIG program is to support rigorous interventions aimed at turning around our Nation's persistently lowest-achieving schools, such that these schools will be able to sustain the reforms beyond five years without SIG funding, and not to provide continuous support. Changes: None. Adding State-Determined School Improvement Intervention Models Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for the addition of a State-determined intervention model and for the alignment between the requirements of the State-determined model and the ESEA flexibility turnaround principles. A number of commenters suggested general modifications to the State-determined model requirement. These suggestions included: Allowing State-determined models that are already approved under ESEA flexibility; allowing State-determined models to address school performance in schools that are a part of the same feeder pattern; allowing an SEA without ESEA flexibility to implement a State-determined model based on the turnaround principles; allowing LEAs to propose State-determined models to their SEA; allowing an SEA to submit a State-determined model that includes a menu of strategies from which LEAs may select, in partnership with the SEA, based on need; requiring a State-determined model to be based on substantial evidence; allowing an SEA to add requirements to the State-determined model; and requiring alignment between the proposed State-determined model and the statewide systems of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support that SEAs are implementing under ESEA flexibility. Numerous commenters also recommended that the Department add specific requirements to the turnaround principles required under the State-determined model, including a requirement: To focus on physical fitness, health education, and nutrition; to conduct a school and community assets and needs assessment to identify students' social, emotional, and health needs; if principal replacement is necessary, to appoint a new principal based on a track record of success with similar schools and an ability to demonstrate the necessary leadership competencies; and that school safety and discipline interventions included in State-determined models be evidence-based. We also received several comments asking for changes to the turnaround principles and to the requirement that a State-determined model include increased learning time (ILT). Several commenters suggested it is too restrictive to require ILT in all State-determined models and requested that the ILT requirement be eliminated or modified to be less restrictive. Several commenters expressed concern that the requirements for the State-determined model are too numerous and too rigid, and may cause undue burden to SEAs, LEAs, and schools, particularly SEAs that are currently pursuing turnaround strategies with emphases different from those required under the State-determined model. Discussion: We appreciate the comments on the State-determined model but do not address the comments specifically, as we are revising the model consistent with applicable legal requirements. Since the publication of the NPR, Congress enacted the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. In the explanatory statement accompanying the Act, which functions as a conference report under section 4 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, the House Committee on Appropriations states that the language in the NPR implementing the State-determined model did not meet congressional intent, which was to provide flexibility from the existing SIG requirements to allow LEAs to implement alternative strategies. The explanatory statement further states that the Department must ensure that the final requirements strictly adhere to the language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Accordingly, we are modifying the State-determined model requirements to allow an SEA to submit to the Secretary for consideration one State-determined model that meets the definition of a “whole-school reform model” in section I.A.3 of the final requirements and that includes, at the SEA's discretion, any other elements or strategies that the SEA determines will help improve student achievement, consistent with the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. We note that the requirement that a State-determined model meet the definition of a “whole-school reform model” and include, at the SEA's discretion, any other element or strategy that an SEA determines will help improve student achievement is also consistent with language in the report that accompanied the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill for the Department (Senate Report 113-71), in which the Senate Appropriations Committee stated that it expects that any approach taken with SIG funds will address schoolwide factors, including, for example, curriculum and instruction, social and emotional support services for students, and training and support for teachers and school leaders. We further note that an SEA that demonstrates that its proposed State-determined model meets the requirements of the evidence-based, whole-school reform model in section I.A.2(e) will not be required to make any additional demonstration for approval. Changes: We have modified the requirements in section II.B.1(b) to permit an SEA to submit to the Secretary for approval a State-determined model that meets the definition of “whole-school reform model” in section I.A.3 of the final requirements and that includes, at the SEA's discretion, any other elements or strategies that the SEA determines will help improve student achievement. Comment: A few commenters asked that the Department clarify whether an SEA could elect to make the State-determined model available to only specific schools in the State. We received a few other comments asking the same question about other models under the SIG program. Several other commenters requested flexibility to allow SEAs to give priority to selected SIG intervention models, rather than making all SIG models available to SIG applicants. Discussion: As noted in question I-4 of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may not require an LEA to implement a particular SIG model in one or more schools. Each LEA has the discretion to determine which model to implement for each school it elects to serve with SIG funds. The only exception to this is if, consistent with State law, the SEA takes over the LEA or school. Nothing in the requirements changes this rule. However, SEAs are not required to submit a State-determined model for approval by the Secretary. Under section I.A.2(g), if an SEA does not submit such a model for approval by the Secretary, an LEA in that State cannot use a State-determined model. We also note that, as described in question I-9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may give priority to an LEA for SIG funding based on a variety of factors including, for example, the intervention an LEA is implementing in its SIG schools. Changes: None. Comment: Two commenters encouraged the Department to consider two specific frameworks in reviewing State-determined models: Multi-tiered Systems of Support and A Framework for Safe and Successful Schools. Discussion: In order to encourage an SEA to submit for consideration a State-determined model that best addresses the needs of that SEA without imposing additional requirements beyond those in section II.B.1(b), we decline to include in the requirements a specific framework that we will use in reviewing State-determined models. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether an eligible online school would be able to meet the requirements of the State-determined model. Discussion: An eligible online school would be able to meet the requirements of the State-determined model provided the LEA implementing the model in an eligible school can demonstrate that the school has met the requirements of the approved State-determined model. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters recommended revising section II.B.1(b) to permit SEAs to implement more than one State-determined model, citing concerns that limiting each SEA to one State-determined model may not sufficiently account for the complexity of school turnaround and for the diversity of LEAs and schools within a State. Several commenters also suggested that limiting SEAs to one State-determined intervention model may not faithfully reflect congressional intent. Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern that given the diversity of LEAs and schools within a State, an SEA may wish to make more than one State-determined model available to its LEAs and schools. We also appreciate the commenters' interest in ensuring that we are correctly interpreting congressional intent. Nevertheless, our reading of the pertinent language included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and 20 U.S.C. 6303(g), “[t]hat funds available for school improvement grants may be used by a local educational agency to implement an alternative State-determined school improvement strategy . . .” (emphasis added), directs us to authorize each State to implement one State-determined model. Changes: None. Adding Evidence-Based, Whole-School Reform Strategies Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department clarify that an LEA may implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model independently of the other SIG intervention models. The commenters intimated that this clarification is needed because the Department referred in the NPR to this type of SIG intervention as a strategy but referred to the other types of interventions as models. Discussion: Consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, an LEA may use SIG funds to implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model in partnership with a whole-school reform model developer and is not required to implement such a model within or together with another SIG intervention model. We are making technical changes to provide the suggested clarification. Changes: As needed throughout the final requirements, we have replaced references to “whole-school reform strategy” with “whole-school reform model” and references to “strategy developer” with “whole-school reform model developer.” Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for the inclusion in the SIG program of evidence-based, whole-school reform models; however, several of the commenters recommended that the Department lower or eliminate the evidence requirements for these models, asserting that the requirements are more stringent than intended by Congress or would result in too few whole-school reform models available to LEAs. Some of these commenters recommended that the Department allow LEAs to implement whole-school reform models supported by only a single study that meets What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards with or without reservations ( i.e., a qualifying experimental or quasi-experimental study) and found a statistically significant favorable impact on a student academic achievement or attainment outcome, instead of at least two such studies. Some commenters also recommended that we allow or require SEAs to prioritize funding for whole-school reform models supported by more than one such study over those with only a single study. In a similar vein, other commenters recommended that the Department allow an exception to the evidence requirements for a whole-school reform model that is supported by a single study that found extraordinarily large impacts of the model on academic achievement or attainment, for which a second study is underway that would potentially meet the requirements, or that is otherwise promising. Discussion: Since the publication of the NPR, Congress enacted the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which modifies the language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, by requiring that the evidence-based, whole-school reform model be based on evidence of effectiveness that includes at least one study instead of two studies. Based on this change, we are modifying the final requirements to align the requirement for evidence of effectiveness required under the evidence-based, whole-school reform model with the definition of “moderate level of evidence” in 34 CFR 77.1. 1 We note that, as described in question I-9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may create priorities within its application process to, for example, prioritize applications for whole-school reform models that are supported by more than one study. 1 The Department previously invited strategy developers and other entities to submit prospective strategies and research studies of the effectiveness of those strategies for review against the requirements for the evidence-based, whole-school reform strategy in the NPR. Based on the revisions to the evidence requirements described in this paragraph, we are re-opening the submission and review process. Accordingly, we invite model developers and other entities to submit prospective models and research studies of the effectiveness of those models for review against the revised evidence requirements in section I.A.2(e)(1) and the requirements of the definition of “whole-school reform model” in section I.A.3. If a model developer or other entity previously submitted a strategy based on the requirements set forth in the NPR, we will consider that strategy against the revised requirements. The previously submitted strategy should not be resubmitted. We intend to identify, from among the models submitted for review, those that meet the requirements in advance of the competition for fiscal year 2014 SIG funds. An LEA seeking to use SIG funds to implement, in partnership with a model developer, an evidence-based, whole-school reform model would be permitted to choose from among the models so identified by the Department. We will provide information regarding the submission and review of prospective models on our Web site at www.ed.gov/programs/sif/npr-wholeschlreform.html. Changes: We have modified the requirements for evidence of effectiveness for the evidence-based, whole-school reform model under section I.A.2(e)(1) to require that evidence of effectiveness include at least one study, rather than two studies, that meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards and by requiring that if the study meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards with reservations, it include a large sample and a multi-site sample as defined in 34 CFR 77.1. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow, as evidence-based, whole-school reform models, combinations of discrete practices or interventions that individually meet the evidence requirements for these models (and that together would potentially meet requirements in the definition of “whole-school reform model”) but do not have evidence of effectiveness when implemented together. Discussion: We believe that, in allowing an LEA to implement, in partnership with a model developer, a whole-school reform model that is based on at least a moderate level of evidence that the model will have a statistically significant effect on student outcomes, Congress intended to require evidence of effectiveness for a model as implemented as a whole, not for the individual practices or interventions that may comprise a model as implemented separately. Accordingly, we do not believe it is appropriate to consider such “bundles” of evidence-based practices or interventions as evidence-based, whole-school reform models. We note, however, that an LEA is not prohibited from implementing one or more evidence-based practices or interventions under another SIG intervention model, and in fact, we encourage SEAs to prioritize LEAs that do so when making SIG awards. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that, to ensure whole-school reform models are supported by evidence that conforms to current research standards, the Department specify that the evidence for these models must be consistent with the principles of scientific research as defined in the Strengthening Education through Research Act (H.R. 4366), a bill to reauthorize the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, currently under consideration by Congress. Discussion: The evidence requirements for the whole-school reform model in these final requirements incorporate evidence standards used by the Department's What Works Clearinghouse to assess the quality of research on policies and practices across the educational spectrum. We believe that these existing standards are sufficient to ensure that the evidence supporting whole-school reform models under SIG is rigorous and reflects current standards of practice in educational research. We note that the standards recommended by the commenter are found in pending legislation and there is no guarantee that Congress will adopt them. Changes: None. Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns that requirements in the definition of “whole-school reform model” are unnecessarily restrictive. Specifically, the commenters opposed, or recommended changes to, the requirement that a whole-school reform model be designed to be implemented for all students in a school, on the grounds that it would exclude models designed to be implemented for students only in a single grade or subset of grades. One of these commenters also questioned the requirement that a whole-school reform model be designed to address, at a minimum and in a comprehensive and coordinated manner: School leadership; teaching and learning in at least one full academic content area (including professional learning for educators); student non-academic support; and family and community engagement. This commenter argued that the evidence of effectiveness of a reform model should be sufficient to warrant implementation of the model in a SIG school, regardless of the model's content. The commenter also asserted that the definition of “whole-school reform model” is not supported by the language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which allows LEAs to use SIG funds to implement evidence-based, whole-school reform models. Conversely, several commenters expressed concerns that the requirements for whole-school reform models are not sufficiently specific or stringent. One of these commenters recommended that the Department consider incorporating required elements of other SIG models into the definition of “whole-school reform model,” which the commenter asserted would result in increased rigor. Another commenter suggested that the Department require whole-school reform models to include student health and wellness programs, while another commenter recommended specifying that the models include professional learning for instructional support staff in addition to teachers. Lastly, one commenter suggested that an SEA would have difficulty in monitoring an LEA implementing a whole-school reform model, due to a perceived lack of specific requirements for this model. Discussion: As stated in Senate Report 113-71 accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee expects that any approach taken with SIG funds will address schoolwide factors, including, for example, curriculum and instruction, social and emotional support services for students, and training and support for teachers and school leaders. We believe that the requirements in the definition of “whole-school reform model,” including the requirement that a model be designed to be implemented for all students in a school ( i.e., in a schoolwide manner), are consistent with congressional intent as described in the Senate Committee report. In addition, we believe these requirements capture, at an appropriate level of specificity, the aspects of school operation that are most likely to affect student achievement and attainment. Accordingly, we do not believe it is necessary to incorporate into the definition of “whole-school reform model” specific required elements of other SIG models or other specific elements recommended by the commenters. Finally, we note that an SEA may require its LEAs to describe in their applications—which the SEA should generally use as a basis for LEA monitoring—the specific contents of selected whole-school reform models, if the SEA deems it necessary for monitoring purposes. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify, in the definition of “whole-school reform model developer,” what constitutes a demonstrated record of success in implementing the model. The commenter also opposed allowing the definition to be met by a developer with a high-quality plan to implement the model together with the LEA, absent a demonstrated record of success implementing the model. This commenter claimed that such a definition would allow any entity or individual to qualify as a developer, regardless of experience. Discussion: We agree that the proposed definition of “whole-school reform model developer” was overly broad in that it permitted an entity or individual to qualify as a developer, regardless of experience. Accordingly, we are eliminating the option to meet the definition through a high-quality plan to implement a model. We decline, however, to specify what constitutes a “record of success” because we believe the current requirement strikes the appropriate balance between requiring a demonstration of some improvement while allowing the SEA the discretion to assess the sufficiency of the individual's or entity's record. To ensure that the SEA uses a rigorous process to make this determination, however, we are clarifying in paragraph (b)(2) of the definition that the SEA must use a rigorous review process to select the individual or entity and that the process must include a determination that the individual or entity is likely to produce strong results for the school. To prevent the definition from becoming too restrictive, however, we are eliminating the requirement that the whole-school reform model developer have a record of success implementing the model that the LEA seeks to implement in a school and replacing it with a requirement that the developer have a record of success in implementing any whole-school reform model. Changes: We have removed paragraph (b)(2) of the definition of “whole-school reform model developer” and adding language to final paragraph (b) of the definition to clarify the process by which an SEA must determine that a whole-school reform model developer has a demonstrated record of success. We also have changed the proposed requirement that the individual or entity have a record of success in implementing the chosen strategy to allow the individual or entity to demonstrate a record of success in implementing any whole-school reform model. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require an LEA to conduct a review of the whole-school reform model developer with whom it proposes to partner to ensure that the developer meets the requirements in the definition of “whole-school reform model developer.” Discussion: Section II.A.2(c) requires an LEA to provide evidence of its strong commitment to implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model through, among other things, a demonstration that it has partnered with a whole-school reform model developer as defined in section I.A(3). Additionally, section I.A.4 requires an SEA to consider the extent to which an LEA has provided such a demonstration in making an award. We believe these requirements are sufficient to ensure that an LEA's partner meets the definition of a “whole-school reform model developer.” Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department add requirements to ensure that developers build effective relationships with the schools and communities they serve, including by building the capacity of school staff to implement the model's reforms. Discussion: The definition of “whole-school reform model” includes requirements that the model be designed to address teaching and learning in at least one full academic content area (including professional learning for educators) and to address family and community engagement. We believe these requirements are adequate to ensure that an evidence-based, whole-school reform model implemented by an LEA in partnership with a developer can meaningfully involve, and be responsive to the needs of, the school's educators and the broader community and to ensure that staff have the capacity to implement the model. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that, by allowing evidence-based, whole-school reform models, the Department intends to direct SIG funds toward established whole-school reform model developers. Another commenter suggested that the Department add requirements to ensure that whole-school reform model developers are not unduly compensated for services provided. Discussion: An LEA seeking SIG funds may choose from among several intervention models and is not required to select and implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model in partnership with a whole-school reform model developer. Moreover, as with any LEA receiving SIG funds, and consistent with question I-30 of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an LEA implementing an evidence-based, whole-school reform model in partnership with a developer may use funds to cover only costs that are reasonable and necessary for implementation of the selected model. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed support for the requirement for an SEA to evaluate, when considering the strength of an LEA's commitment, the extent to which the LEA demonstrates in its application that the evidence for its selected whole-school reform model includes a sample population or setting similar to the population or setting of the school to be served. However, this commenter expressed concern that the requirement might prevent certain LEAs from implementing an evidence-based, whole-school reform model. Specifically, the commenter suggested that a rural LEA would be prevented from implementing a whole-school reform model if the evidence for the model did not include a rural setting. Another commenter likewise expressed support for the requirement, but cautioned that the demonstrations required of LEAs might be unduly burdensome and, therefore, deter LEAs from selecting an evidence-based, whole-school reform model. Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are unwarranted. Insofar as whole-school reform models are designed to be implemented in low-performing schools, we expect that an LEA should generally be able to demonstrate successfully a similarity between the SIG school it proposes to serve, including a SIG school in a rural LEA, and the schools in the samples of the research supporting the evidence-based, whole-school reform model. Of course, an LEA should be careful to ensure that a prospective whole-school reform model is appropriate for a school in light of its characteristics. It would likely be inappropriate, for instance, to implement a secondary school whole-school reform model in an elementary school, or a whole-school reform model for schools with high concentrations of English learners in a school with few such students. In addition, we believe that any additional burden associated with the demonstration required would be outweighed by the benefits of implementing reforms that have been shown through rigorous research to be effective in improving student achievement and attainment. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that we permit an LEA seeking to implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model to use SIG funds to partner with a community-based organization to implement out-of-school programming that complements and reinforces the selected whole-school reform model. Discussion: An LEA implementing an evidence-based, whole-school reform model in partnership with a whole-school reform model developer is not prohibited under the requirements from using SIG funds also to partner with another organization to provide out-of-school programming, provided the LEA has received sufficient funds to do so. Changes: None. Rural LEAs' Modification of One SIG Intervention Model Element Comment: Many commenters supported the proposal to permit an LEA that is eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title VI of the ESEA (rural LEA) to modify one element of the turnaround or transformation model and the proposal to collect data on the number of rural LEAs that implement SIG models with modified elements. Several commenters recommended extending the proposed flexibility for rural LEAs to the early learning model, in addition to the turnaround and transformation models. These commenters stated that for the same reasons that schools in rural LEAs need flexibility in implementing the transformation and turnaround models, these schools need flexibility in implementing the early learning model. Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the rural flexibility, which is consistent with language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. We believe that this rural flexibility should apply to the existing turnaround and transformation models to ensure that a rural LEA is able to implement successfully existing SIG models, despite potential capacity issues and other challenges. Through the rural flexibility, we recognize that a rural LEA may not be in a position to implement each element of the turnaround or transformation model because, for example, it lacks a pool of high-quality school leaders from which it can choose a principal replacement. The rural flexibility provides a rural LEA with an alternate method to meet the leadership requirements of the turnaround and transformation models. In designing the new models, we built in sufficient flexibility such that the rural flexibility is not necessary to make these models available to rural LEAs. The new models offer a broader array of intervention strategies among which a rural LEA may select the one that best fits the unique context and needs of its schools, based in part on the district's capacity to implement the model. The addition of these new models, along with the rural flexibility provided in the turnaround and transformation models, should offer enough options such that a rural LEA is able to select and successfully implement an appropriate SIG model. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow a rural LEA to modify more than one SIG intervention model element. Discussion: The requirements allowing a rural LEA to modify just one element of a model are consistent with the language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which states that a rural LEA may modify “not more than one” element of a SIG intervention model. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that a non-rural LEA may perceive the element that a rural LEA chooses to modify as less essential to the intervention model as a whole. Another commenter recommended that an LEA only be permitted to modify an element based on the LEA's specific needs and context, rather than any element that the LEA fears is too difficult or controversial to implement. Discussion: We appreciate that allowing rural LEAs to modify an element of the turnaround or transformation model could create the perception that those elements are not necessary to successfully turn around a school. We believe, however, that rural LEAs face unique challenges and that increased flexibility will help those LEAs successfully turn around low-achieving schools. By requiring rural LEAs to demonstrate that they will meet the intent and purpose of the original element, we believe that they will maintain the integrity of the turnaround and transformation models. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended providing flexibility for rural schools in non-rural LEAs. Discussion: The proposed requirement permitting a rural LEA to modify one SIG intervention model element is consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which requires that this flexibility apply to an LEA that is eligible under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title VI of the ESEA. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the Department help build State and local capacity for supporting sustained rural school improvement. Discussion: We understand that some rural areas face unique challenges in turning around low-achieving schools, but we believe that the significant amount of funding available to implement the SIG models, as well as the new flexibility extended to rural LEAs, will help these LEAs and schools to overcome the resource limitations and capacity issues that have hindered successful rural school reform. We intend to continue to provide technical assistance to rural LEAs and schools on successful SIG implementation. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide a rationale for requiring SEAs to report on the number of schools implementing models with a modified element. Another commenter asked that the Department require SEAs to make publicly available on the SEA's Web site information about schools in rural LEAs implementing SIG models with modified elements. Discussion: Under section III.A(3) of the requirements, an SEA must report data on the number of rural schools implementing models with a modified element. We believe that these reporting requirements are necessary to ensure that the public and the Department have sufficient information to understand how the rural flexibility is being applied, and that they do not impose an unjustified or significant burden on SEAs. An SEA is required to post on its Web site, within 30 days of awarding SIG funds, all approved LEA applications. Because a rural LEA requesting to modify an element of a SIG model must demonstrate in its application how it will meet the intent and purpose of the original element, information about rural LEAs and any modifications to the models they are implementing will be available as part of the LEA's application on the SEA's Web site. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide additional examples of elements that a rural LEA may request to modify, beyond replacing the principal. Discussion: We intend to issue guidance to assist SEAs and LEAs in implementing the rural flexibility. We encourage each rural LEA to take into account local context and need in making the decision regarding which element, if any, to modify. Changes: None. Adding Early Learning Model Comment: Several commenters supported the addition of the early learning model. One commenter believed that research in this area is undeniable and that the challenge in implementing high-quality preschool programs has been a lack of funding, which the early learning model can address for LEAs that choose this model. Other commenters noted that research shows the achievement gap begins before kindergarten and that investments in high-quality early learning programs help children from low-income families prepare for success in kindergarten. Another commenter particularly applauded the emphasis on all domains of development, not just academic, in the early learning model. Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support. We believe the early learning model can lead to both short- and long-term positive outcomes for all children in a SIG school implementing this model, including, but not limited to, improved academic achievement, social development, lower rates of grade retention and placement in special education, and improved graduation rates. Educational improvement strategies that focus on preschool and the early grades can address the persistent and large achievement gaps by race and income that are evident upon kindergarten entry, often well entrenched by third grade, and that negatively affect both individual student outcomes in later grades and overall school performance. Changes: None. Comment: Many of the commenters offering support for the addition of the early learning model submitted substantially identical requests to add a new requirement to section I.A.2(f) of the proposed requirements that would require an LEA implementing the proposed early learning model to provide a high-quality, evidence-based literacy intervention (that has at least two pieces of evidence of effectiveness) for students who, after one year in school, are identified as being at risk of literacy failure (using a reliable and valid screener). Discussion: We believe that there are a number of important activities that would be appropriate to address in an early learning model. We agree that early literacy interventions, particularly those that are evidence-based, can be an effective component of a broader strategy to turn around low-performing schools along with strategies that address social and emotional development, early math and science, and other domains of early development. Nothing in the proposed requirements would prevent an LEA from implementing such an intervention under any of the models. However, to permit LEAs flexibility to select those interventions that best address their local needs, we decline to require LEAs to implement an evidence-based literacy intervention under this model. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification about how the preschool requirements proposed for the early learning model are similar to or different from current guidelines for title I schools. Discussion: The Department's non-regulatory guidance, Serving Preschool Children Through Title I Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended, 2 is primarily focused on helping SEAs and LEAs understand how they may use ESEA title I, part A funds to support preschool programs consistent with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Like all non-regulatory guidance, it does not impose any additional requirements on SEAs or LEAs beyond those of existing law and regulations. For example, the title I preschool non-regulatory guidance describes how title I funds may be used to support preschool programs and services for eligible children in the context of title I schoolwide programs, targeted assistance programs, and districtwide preschool programs. It also clarifies such issues as which children are eligible to participate in title I-funded preschool programs, the qualifications of teachers and paraprofessionals working in such programs, requirements for parental involvement in title I preschool programs, and the applicability of supplement-not-supplant provisions. In other words, the title I preschool non-regulatory guidance mainly addresses compliance with applicable requirements of title I, part A of the ESEA, rather than the implementation of high-quality preschool programs. 2 Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/preschoolguidance2012.pdf. The requirements of the new early learning model in the SIG program relating to high-quality preschool programs are based closely on the related requirements in the Department's Preschool Development Grants program, which defines “high-quality preschool program” to include elements that research suggests are most effective in promoting school readiness and improving long-term educational and life outcomes, especially for children from low-income families. More information on the Preschool Development Grants program may be found at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/preschooldevelopmentgrants/index.html. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department add requirements within the early learning model to ensure adequate family and community engagement. One commenter suggested the Department require that professional development for all staff under this model include high-impact strategies for family engagement. Another commenter encouraged the Department to add a requirement in the early learning intervention model that the grantee design and implement initiatives and strategies that build the capacity of school staff and families to engage in effective partnerships that support student achievement and healthy development. A few commenters requested that the definition of a “high-quality preschool program” be modified to include continuous and meaningful family and community engagement and proposed definitions for this term. Discussion: The Department agrees that family and community engagement, both on an ongoing basis and in selection of the appropriate SIG model, is an essential component to ensure successful turnaround of the lowest performing schools. As such, under sections I.A.4(a)(1) and I.A.4(a)(8), an SEA must consider the extent to which an LEA has demonstrated that it engaged families and the community in the selection of the SIG model and how the LEA will meaningfully engage families and the community on a continuous basis throughout implementation. These requirements apply across all models, including the early learning model. While we agree that family and community engagement may be one valuable area of professional development, we decline to add a specific requirement for professional development or capacity building regarding family and community engagement so that LEAs may determine which types of professional development and capacity building activities to offer based on the particular needs of their schools and communities. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department clarify that a high-quality, community-based provider may provide preschool services as part of the early learning model, either at the SIG school or through an existing high-quality child care or Head Start program within the LEA or nearby community. Many of these commenters argued that clarifying this aspect of implementation of the early learning model would help align SIG with other Department programs, such as the Preschool Development Grants and title I programs, through which the Department has encouraged mixed-delivery models for preschool services. Some commenters noted that allowing a community-based provider to provide preschool services as part of an early learning model is consistent with many LEAs' provision of preschool services, including services that are supported with title I funds, and that existing providers may be better equipped to rapidly expand capacity and serve additional children, particularly because of their working knowledge of the community. One commenter hypothesized that explicitly allowing LEAs to partner with those existing programs to provide preschool services could help make the early learning model more attractive to LEAs. A couple of commenters recommended that if a SIG elementary school contracts with a child care or Head Start program to deliver preschool services, it should be required to describe how it will work to coordinate with the school on appropriate and effective transitions to build continuity of high-quality early learning. One commenter specifically suggested that libraries be listed as an eligible entity and allowable partner under the proposed early learning model. One commenter requested that the Department add a new element to the early learning model, requiring partnerships with external providers, such as community-based organizations and community-based media outlets, in order to increase the quality of the early learning program and its connections to the larger community. Discussion: As part of its implementation of the early learning model, an LEA may contract with a community-based provider to provide high-quality preschool programs for students enrolled in an elementary school implementing the model. This is consistent with the SIG program in general, which allows the use of external providers and other community-based organizations under any of the SIG models. Any SIG school working with a community-based provider should ensure coordination across all grades in the elementary school, including preschool, to ensure continuity of high-quality early learning and appropriateness of transitions. The Department will provide additional guidance to help LEAs and schools work with community-based providers to provide high-quality preschool programs as part of the comprehensive early learning model. LEAs may choose to use an external provider in implementing their early learning models, or enter into a partnership with various entities, such as school libraries. However, the Department's intent is to provide sufficient flexibility for LEAs, so that they may take into account the local context and needs of the community to the greatest extent possible and, therefore, the Department declines to revise the proposed requirements based on these comments. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that we require curricula in the early learning model that employ high-quality multiplatform digital content and services. Discussion: The Department is prohibited from mandating State, LEA, or school curriculum under 20 U.S.C. 7907. We therefore decline to make the commenter's suggested change. Changes: None. Comment: A few commenters asked if a preschool must be physically located in the eligible elementary school and whether the preschool could be a feeder preschool for several schools, including the SIG-eligible school. Discussion: A preschool is not required to be physically located in the eligible elementary school. However, students must be enrolled in the SIG school that is implementing the early learning model to receive preschool services funded through the SIG program. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that we require an LEA to describe in its SIG application how the impact of high-quality early learning experiences will be sustained over time. Discussion: Under section I.A.4(a)(12), an SEA must evaluate the extent to which an LEA demonstrates in its application for a SIG award that it will sustain the reforms after the funding period ends. We believe this existing requirement is responsive to the commenter's suggestion. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters noted concerns about relying on early learning as the sole focus of a school's turnaround strategy. One commenter recommended adopting the early learning model as a turnaround strategy only in conjunction with at least one other strategy. Another commenter recommended that the Department require LEAs to demonstrate how an early learning model will complement and be linked to a school's other reform strategies, particularly efforts to ensure that children read at grade level by the third grade. One commenter noted that it is unclear which requirements in the model apply across the whole school as opposed to just the early grades being added to the school. Specifically, the commenter thought it was unclear if the requirement to implement staff retention strategies, such as the provision of financial incentives and increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, applied to all grades or only the early grades. This commenter was concerned that the SEA may not be able to allocate enough funds to an LEA to implement the many requirements with fidelity in all grades while adding new early learning services to the school. Discussion: We recognize that early learning is only one strategy to turn around the persistently lowest-performing schools. As such, the early learning model includes requirements similar to those of the current transformation model to ensure all students across all grades in the elementary school are receiving services. For example, the model requires an LEA to implement rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation and support systems for teachers and principals; implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions; and use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based, developmentally appropriate, and vertically aligned from one grade to the next. In this way, the early learning model is analogous to the other SIG models in that it is a comprehensive whole-school reform model. The early learning model requirements in section I.A.2(f)(1)(C) and sections I.A.2(f)(2)-(9) apply across the whole school, and we encourage each LEA implementing the early learning model to coordinate services across all grades in the school. An LEA may receive up to $2 million per year per school implementing the early learning model, which we believe is sufficient to implement the early learning model requirements with fidelity. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters encouraged the Department to include evidence-based home visiting services, either directly or through partnerships and contracts, as either an allowable or required activity under the early learning model. Commenters contended that well-designed home visiting systems improve child and family outcomes and increase parents' ability to support their children's development and success. A few of those commenters noted that adding this requirement would align SIG with other Department efforts and that some LEAs already use title I funds to provide home visiting services prior to school entry. Another commenter suggested that evidence-based home visiting should be an allowable activity under the definition of ILT and that this activity would be less costly than other activities required under ILT. Discussion: We agree that evidence-based home visiting services can be a valuable component of any school turnaround model. As such, home visiting is an allowable activity under all of the SIG models, although it does not meet the definition of ILT. To ensure continued flexibility regarding allowable uses of funds under the SIG program, we decline to reduce State and local discretion by adding a requirement that an LEA implementing the early learning model must provide home visiting services. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters opposed the requirement to replace the principal in the early learning model. Some of these commenters urged the Department to require applicants using the early learning model to provide support and professional development for principals as well as teachers, and base firing decisions only on fair and objective evaluations of the principal after the principal has been allowed time to implement the model. One commenter noted that an LEA's needs analysis may reveal that the root cause for low student achievement is a lack of access to early learning and, as such, replacing the principal may not be necessary. This commenter also noted that, as currently written, the transformation model allows for the expansion of the school program to offer full-day kindergarten or pre-kindergarten to a school without many of the restrictions detailed in the newly proposed early learning model. One commenter also suggested that the Department clarify that the principal replacement requirement in section I.A.2(f)(2) refers to the leader of the SIG-eligible school, not to the leader of the preschool. Discussion: We understand that replacing a school principal is one of the most challenging aspects of the early learning model; however, we also know that many of our lowest-achieving schools have failed to improve without leadership changes. We continue to believe that dramatic and wholesale changes in leadership are an appropriate intervention for creating an entirely new and improved school culture. We acknowledge that it can be difficult to identify, train, and retain qualified school leaders for the lowest-performing schools, but other Federal programs, including the Turnaround School Leaders program funded with SIG national activities funds, are helping to create incentives and supports to attract, train, and reward effective principals and improve strategies for recruitment, retention, and professional development. Additionally, flexibility within section I.B.1 of the requirements permits an LEA to retain a school principal who has held the position for two years or less prior to the implementation of the SIG model. We recognize that an LEA may expand the school day to offer full-day kindergarten or pre-kindergarten in a school implementing one of the other SIG models. The addition of the early learning model, however, provides another option for LEAs to consider in determining which interventions are necessary to turn around low-performing schools. To clarify, any of the requirements of the early learning model, including the requirement to replace the principal, apply to the elementary school implementing the model, not to the leader of the preschool if the preschool is provided through a community-based provider with which the school contracts. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed requirements for the early learning model are too prescriptive and establish requirements that are not feasible for LEAs to implement, particularly those LEAs that do not currently offer full-day kindergarten or preschool programs. One commenter suggested removing requirements not directly related to high-quality early learning to reduce the challenges of implementation. Another commenter recommended that the Department allow SEAs to make subgrants for early learning to LEAs that do not necessarily meet all the criteria in the requirements, so long as the SEA can demonstrate that the LEAs will meet the State's own requirements for high-quality preschool programs or meet other recognized standards of quality, to allow LEAs to phase in early learning interventions. Other commenters suggested that the model should allow for phase in of new slots for preschool students due to the challenges in, and disruption that can be caused by, implementing many reforms at the same time. Discussion: We believe that all of the components of the early learning model, including the requirements relating to expanding high-quality preschool programs and addressing the needs of all students in the elementary school, are necessary to help ensure successful school turnaround and are feasible to implement. As with all of the SIG models, full implementation of all of the elements of the model must begin on the first day of the school year when the LEA begins full implementation. We note, however, that under section II.A.3 of the requirements, LEAs have up to one full school year for planning and pre-implementation activities, during which they could begin phasing in various components of the early learning model. We believe that this one-year period is sufficient for an LEA to prepare to implement in a high-quality manner an early learning model in a school at the start of the next school year. We also note that an LEA may choose one of the other SIG models to implement if it does not have the capacity to fully implement the early learning model. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters were pleased that full-day kindergarten was included in the proposed early learning model. Several commenters proposed that the Department further define “full-day” kindergarten to align with the definition in the Department's Preschool Development Grants. One commenter noted that there is no standard definition of “full-day kindergarten” and requested that the Department adopt a definition to help ensure programs are comparable for evaluation and funding purposes and that students are receiving equitable opportunities. Another commenter recommended that we incorporate into the SIG requirements several additional definitions from the Department's Preschool Development Grant program, including the definitions of “Early Learning Development Standards” and “Essential Domains of School Readiness.” Another commenter recommended adding language to require kindergarten and early grades to meet the requirements under the definition of “high-quality preschool,” including the requirements that schools assign teachers with certifications and endorsements in early childhood education to the early grades. This commenter also suggested that teachers in the early grades should have credentials and professional development that recognize the specialized knowledge and skills needed to work with preschool through third-grade students. Discussion: Unlike the Preschool Development Grants program, the early learning model under the SIG program is a comprehensive approach to whole-school turnaround. For that reason, the requirements reflect a balance between the Department's interest in encouraging the implementation of a rigorous early learning intervention, as well as coordinated services for all students in the school, and our interest in allowing LEAs the flexibility to tailor their activities to fit local needs and context. For that reason, we decline to adopt the definition of “full-day” kindergarten or other definitions in the Preschool Development Grants program or to otherwise expand the requirements as suggested. We also decline to expand the requirements of a high-quality preschool program to apply to kindergarten or the early grades because the requirements in section I.A.2(f)(1)(C) and sections I.A.2(f)(2)-(9) are sufficient to ensure that all students in the school, regardless of grade, will benefit from the model. Changes: None. Comment: Some commenters expressed support for the proposed requirement within the early learning model to provide joint planning time for educators across grades. One commenter encouraged the Department to require that the joint planning time include collaboration and professional development to ensure that educators serving in SIG schools have the capacity to serve children across the range of developmental domains. One commenter noted that it is unclear whether teachers in all grades in the elementary school are required to engage in joint planning and recommended requiring cross-grade planning for teachers teaching kindergarten through third grade. Discussion: We agree that joint planning across grades is an essential component of any school turnaround strategy, and that this component is particularly important in models that include the provision of high-quality preschool. We confirm that, to ensure continuity across grades, cross-grade planning across all grades is required under section I.A.2(f)(1)(C). Accordingly, we decline to limit this requirement to apply only to teachers of students in kindergarten to third grade. We also note that professional development, which we expect often includes collaboration, is required under section I.A.2(f)(8) and must be designed to ensure that staff have the capacity to implement successfully the school reform strategies. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to study the potential impact of investing in early learning, particularly because most current turnaround metrics focus on third grade and beyond. This commenter also suggested that the current SIG metrics provide a disincentive for LEAs to choose the early learning implementation model as assessment results in grades three and up are used as the primary determinant of a turnaround model's success. The commenter suggested shifting the focus from standardized test scores to measures of professional practice, which could be used in combination with child outcome metrics. The commenter recommended that the SIG requirements explicitly authorize SEAs to adopt metrics of this kind for at least their elementary schools. Discussion: We agree that it is important to evaluate the impact of school turnaround efforts, which is why the Department will require SEAs and schools to collect and report data on the implementation of their chosen model, including the early learning model. Standardized test scores are not the primary metric that schools and SEAs must report. Rather, they are one of a number of measures that will be used to assess whether an LEA's implementation of the chosen SIG model in a school is effective. Other measures include the absenteeism rate and number of discipline incidents. Although we do not require SEAs to report professional practice data, they are required to report on the distribution of teachers by performance level based on the LEA's teacher evaluation system, which generally includes measures of professional practice. We encourage SEAs, LEAs, and schools to collect additional data, such as professional practice data, which can help provide a more holistic picture of whether a SIG model has been effectively implemented. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear from the proposed requirements whether the early learning model would apply to any LEA that receives SIG funding to implement any SIG model in an elementary school, or if it constitutes a new model for which an LEA may apply for SIG funds based on the early learning needs of its elementary schools. Discussion: To clarify, the early learning model is a new model under the SIG requirements. An LEA implementing another model is not required to meet the requirements of the early learning model. Likewise, although current grantees may add early learning strategies, such as high-quality preschool programs or full-day kindergarten, they are not required to do so. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the services of school social workers, school psychologists, and other school-employed support personnel should meet the requirements for on-site accessible comprehensive services. Discussion: Nothing in the requirements would preclude a school from fulfilling the requirements for on-site accessible comprehensive services by using support staff employed by the school to provide such services. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter contended that building a preschool program in a persistently low-performing school does not address the overall academic weaknesses that were responsible for the school's identification by the State and recommended removing the early learning model and the definition of “high-quality preschool.” The commenter argued that the early learning strategy incorrectly places an emphasis on a new cohort of young children, rather than focusing on the current students whose underperformance is the statutory target of the SIG program. Discussion: Consistent evidence demonstrates that participation in high-quality early learning programs can lead to both short- and long-term positive outcomes for all students. 3 We believe that, if a school focuses on improving or adding a high-quality preschool program, the positive effects will continue well into students' educational future, thus improving the overall academic weaknesses that were responsible for the school's identification by the State. By focusing on improving educational opportunities for students in the early years, schools can break the cycle of poor academic achievement before it even begins, which will then give these students a better chance at success throughout their academic careers. Further, although the early learning model's primary focus is on early learners, the model also requires interventions designed to address the needs of all students at the school. Moreover, we note that under all of the SIG models, new students enroll in the school after the school has been identified as eligible. 3 See “Investing in our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education” (available at http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf ). Society for Research in Child Development and the Foundation for Child Development, October 2013. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested that the Department require LEAs to provide early screenings for learning issues and delays in early literacy and math skill development, and provide appropriate interventions based on screening outcomes. Discussion: We agree that providing early screenings to identify students with disabilities is a meaningful activity, and is an allowable use of SIG funds under any of the SIG models. However, to ensure schools have the flexibility to tailor their interventions to local needs, we decline to require this activity under the early learning model. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require that the early learning model be coordinated and integrated fully with any existing State preschool program. Discussion: While we strongly believe that any efforts undertaken with SIG funding should closely align with turnaround work across the State and that there may be positive results from coordinating with a State's preschool program, we decline to require that the early learning model be coordinated and fully integrated with the State preschool program. Given the disparity in State requirements regarding high-quality preschool programs, such a requirement may be unduly burdensome and too difficult to ensure consistency in implementation. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department encourage approaches and partnerships that utilize technology for personalized learning by explicitly supporting the use of digital learning in the early learning model. The commenter believed this could be especially beneficial to schools in rural areas, which, the commenter suggested, should receive priority for SIG funding. Discussion: We agree that technology can be used to enhance personalized learning, particularly in rural areas, and digital learning is a permitted activity under the early learning model. However, we decline to specifically require digital learning. There are many valuable strategies that schools should consider in implementing a comprehensive school turnaround strategy and, therefore, we designed the models to identify general performance objectives while also maximizing an LEA's discretion to choose the strategies that meet both these general objectives and the school's particular needs. We also note that, as described in question I-9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may give priority to an LEA for SIG funding based on a variety of factors including, for example, the rural status of the school or LEA. Changes: None. Modifying the Teacher and Principal Evaluation and Support System Requirements Under the Transformation Model. Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for the proposed requirement in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) revising the transformation model requirement for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems, with some noting that they supported the alignment between the proposed requirements for these systems and the requirements under ESEA flexibility. Other commenters supported the proposed requirement that teacher and principal evaluation and support systems use multiple measures. One commenter, however, recommended revising the requirement related to the use of data on student growth to allow, but not require, the use of multiple measures for the evaluation of teachers of tested grades and subjects (but to continue to require the use of data on student growth based on State assessments for teachers of tested grades and subjects) and to allow, but not require, alternate measures of student growth for the evaluation of teachers of non-tested grades and subjects. Another commenter recommended that the results of standardized tests should comprise only a small percentage of a teacher's evaluation. One commenter noted that the link between children's test scores and teacher and principal evaluations is not appropriate, especially for teachers of early grades. Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting the alignment of the requirements for educator evaluation systems under the transformation model with the requirements for these systems under ESEA flexibility. We agree that this change will reduce the burden on LEAs in SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility requests because they will not have to implement separate evaluation systems. However, to ensure that such systems are both fair to educators and contribute to improved instruction for all students, we believe it is essential to maintain the proposed requirements for the use of multiple measures, including student growth for teachers of non-tested grades and subjects. We also believe that student growth based on State assessments should be a significant factor in evaluations of teachers of all tested grades and subjects because State assessments offer objective measures that are consistent across LEAs; while the Department has been flexible about defining what constitutes a “significant factor,” requiring student growth data to comprise only a small percentage of evaluations would not be consistent with this longstanding position. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended extending the requirement for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems to the turnaround model and requiring that the systems be used for decisions about financial incentives. The commenter also recommended that the Department revise the transformation model requirements to state specifically that the use of educator evaluation and support systems in decisions about retaining staff and selecting new staff is permissible. Finally, the commenter recommended requiring an LEA implementing the early learning model in a school to use the evaluation and support system to select new staff and prevent ineffective staff from transferring to the school. Discussion: We agree that it would be beneficial for all schools to implement teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that meet the requirements in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) and to use the results of those systems in making personnel decisions generally, including in making decisions regarding the payment of financial incentives. We also note that implementing such an evaluation and support system is allowable under any SIG model, including the turnaround model. However, such systems generally are not designed to support the rigorous requirement for staffing changes under the turnaround model, which calls for screening and rehiring no more than 50 percent of existing staff and hiring new staff. This is why the turnaround model instead requires the use of locally adopted competencies for this purpose. However, an LEA implementing the turnaround model in a school may use the results of a teacher and principal evaluation and support system in making personnel decisions, including hiring decisions, in addition to locally adopted competencies. We also note that an LEA implementing the transformation model already must use the results of the evaluations for personnel decisions, in accordance with section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii)(6), and that an LEA implementing the early learning model already must use the results of the evaluations for personnel decisions, in accordance with section I.A.2(f)(3). Changes: None. Eliminating the “Rule of Nine” Comment: Four commenters supported eliminating the “rule of nine,” while one commenter disagreed with the elimination of this rule, based on the original premise that it promoted the selection of the most rigorous SIG interventions ( i.e., turnaround and restart), which the commenter believed are more likely to result in improved student performance. Discussion: We appreciate the support for the elimination of the “rule of nine,” and note that, as stated in the NPR, it had limited impact. In addition, we believe that a rule limiting the specific interventions that an LEA may implement is inconsistent with the intent of Congress as demonstrated by the increased flexibility in the selection and implementation of SIG-funded intervention models provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Changes: None. Adding LEA Requirement To Demonstrate Appropriateness of Chosen Intervention Model and Take Into Consideration Family and Community Input Comment: Many commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(1), requiring an LEA to demonstrate the appropriateness of the chosen intervention model and to take into consideration family and community input in model selection. One commenter suggested that the Department require an LEA to demonstrate that it sought “broad-based” input from families and the community. Other commenters recommended requiring an LEA to engage and solicit input from all relevant stakeholders. However, one commenter opposed requiring an LEA to demonstrate in its application how it will meaningfully engage families and the community in the implementation of its chosen intervention, warning that the need to provide evidence of parent investment up front could prevent successful alternative operators (which we interpret to mean external providers) from working with SIG schools. Discussion: We appreciate the support for the requirements to demonstrate the appropriateness of the chosen intervention model and to take into consideration family and community input in the selection of the SIG model. However, we decline to set forth specific criteria that an LEA must meet to demonstrate family and community engagement, because the precise nature of such engagement may vary widely across different types of communities. However, we intend to provide guidance encouraging SEAs, in their review of the evidence of family and community engagement in an LEA's SIG application, to examine whether the LEA sought input from all relevant stakeholders, including, for example, those representing English learners and students with disabilities. We do not agree that requiring a demonstration of parental involvement will prevent high-quality external providers from working with an LEA in SIG schools. In fact, we believe that the requirement that an LEA engage families and the community early in the process of planning its SIG intervention will result in increased transparency and accountability related to the selection of, and subsequent implementation by, external providers, which will help with implementing the model successfully. Changes: None. Adding LEA Requirement to Continuously Engage Families and the Community Throughout Implementation Comment: Many commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(8), requiring an LEA to demonstrate in its SIG application how the LEA will meaningfully engage families and the community in the implementation of its selected intervention. Several commenters recommended that the Department provide additional technical assistance and guidance on what constitutes meaningful family and community engagement. One commenter requested that we require that schools enter into joint use agreements with the community, for example with regard to sharing space. Another commenter recommended that the Department clarify that the purpose of engaging families and the community is to improve student achievement and healthy development. The commenter also recommended adding language throughout the requirements to emphasize that family and community engagement would be an element of each of the intervention models. One commenter recommended expanding the family and community engagement requirements to promote the role of community partners and intermediary organizations in school turnarounds, stating that such entities can provide expertise and capacity-building support essential to turning around low-performing schools. Discussion: We agree that it is important that an LEA engage in meaningful family and community engagement, reach appropriate stakeholders, and ensure that the input the LEA receives is relevant and useful throughout the period of SIG implementation. We believe, however, that section I.A.4(a)(8) of the requirements, along with guidance that the Department will provide on this issue, will be sufficient to help ensure that an LEA engages in an ongoing and meaningful way with families and the community throughout the implementation of each SIG-funded intervention model. We also note that both the current and proposed requirements, including the requirements for each of the intervention models, provide ample flexibility for SIG grantees to partner with the broadest possible range of entities to obtain the support needed for successful implementation of their selected intervention models permitting, for example, specific interventions focused on improving student performance and encouraging healthy development of students. For these reasons, we decline to make the changes recommended by the commenters. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended requiring an SEA to report on how a SIG grantee obtains and uses family input during the implementation of its intervention model. Discussion: We believe that adding new reporting requirements related to family and community engagement would be unnecessarily burdensome because the data on family and community engagement lacks uniformity. We also believe that such an addition would be unnecessary because the new application requirements in section I.A.4(a)(1) related to family and community engagement are sufficient to ensure that LEAs meaningfully seek and incorporate this input into the selection and implementation of SIG-funded intervention models. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether the family and community engagement requirement in section I.A.2(d)(3)(A)(ii) under the transformation model differs from the family and community engagement requirement in section I.A.4(a)(8), which applies to all models. Discussion: The provisions are the same. We elected to retain the separate requirement in the transformation model out of concern that removing it could leave the impression that the Department is no longer requiring family and community engagement under the transformation model. Changes: None. Adding LEA Requirement To Monitor and Support Intervention and Implementation Comment: Several commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(7), requiring an LEA to demonstrate how it will provide effective oversight and support for implementation of interventions in its schools. Some of these commenters requested guidance regarding the definition of “monitoring” in order to clarify what is required of LEAs, and one commenter questioned whether the requirement would be different for a charter LEA versus a traditional LEA. However, one commenter cautioned the Department not to specify how the monitoring and support should be conducted, stating that the approach will necessarily differ based on the context and capabilities of the LEA. Discussion: We believe the proposed requirements, which would apply to regular and charter LEAs alike, sufficiently address an LEA's monitoring obligations in part because, as noted by the commenter, the monitoring approach will differ based on the context and capabilities of the LEA. However, we will work with SEAs to provide guidance and technical assistance to LEAs related to quality monitoring and the types of information SEAs and LEAs should consider in determining whether or not the LEA has adopted or should adopt a new governance structure. Changes: None. Adding LEA Requirements to Regularly Review External Providers' Performance and Hold External Providers Accountable Comment: Several commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(4), requiring an LEA to regularly review external providers' performance and hold external providers accountable. One commenter also recommended requiring evidence that the LEA will recruit, screen, select, and execute contracts with any providers by the start of the school year. Similarly, another commenter recommended that the Department encourage LEAs to develop performance metrics with all providers at the onset of the partnership. One commenter, while supportive of the requirements, expressed concern about the capacity of smaller LEAs to engage in appropriate oversight and to identify appropriate providers. Additionally, one commenter requested more guidance for schools and LEAs on this issue. Discussion: We appreciate the support for requiring LEAs to hold external providers accountable for their performance. We recognize that an LEA may not have identified the external provider it will use at the time it applies for a SIG award; consequently, under section I.A.4(a)(4), the LEA must demonstrate that it will recruit, screen, and select external providers to ensure their quality and regularly review and hold the external providers accountable. We believe this requirement is sufficient to ensure that an LEA uses external providers effectively. We also believe that most LEAs will use the pre-implementation or planning period to recruit and select external providers and develop the performance metrics against which the external provider will be evaluated. Moreover, under section I.A.4(a)(3), any external provider that will be used to implement the chosen SIG model must be in place on the first day of the first school year of full implementation. We acknowledge that smaller LEAs may face capacity challenges and caution LEAs to assess their ability to hold external providers accountable before committing to use them. We believe, however that the significant amount of SIG funding available to implement the intervention models will help these LEAs overcome any such limitations. We have previously issued guidance on external providers, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigfaq-finalversion.doc. We intend to issue additional guidance to assist SEAs and LEAs in carrying out the requirements pertaining to external providers. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification about which vendors the Department is referencing. Discussion: We understand this comment to ask to which external providers the requirements apply. All external providers that an LEA uses to help implement any aspect of a SIG model, regardless of the model being implemented, are subject to section I.A.4(a)(4). Changes: None. Comment: One commenter opposed proposed section I.A.4(a)(4) regarding external providers out of apparent concern that it would change eligibility and could permit the award of SIG funds to entities other than school districts. This commenter stated that funds should flow from States to school districts. Discussion: The commenter misunderstood the proposed requirement, as only LEAs with schools that meet the definition under I.A.1 are eligible for an award of SIG funds. Changes: None. Clarifying the Rigorous Review Process Under the Restart Model Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the clarification of the rigorous review process in the restart model. One of these commenters asked that we require an LEA applying to implement the restart model to seek community input prior to choosing a charter operator. Another commenter recommended that we restrict selection of charter management organizations (CMOs) or education management organization (EMOs) further by prohibiting an LEA from contracting with a CMO or EMO with a track record of operating schools that do not improve student achievement or with significant compliance issues in the areas of civil rights, financial management, and student safety. Discussion: We agree that an LEA implementing the restart model should seek family and community input prior to implementing the model. In fact, under section I.A.4(a)(1) of the requirements, an SEA must evaluate the extent to which an LEA demonstrates in its application for a SIG award that it took into consideration family and community input in selecting the intervention for each school. We believe this provision creates sufficient safeguards to ensure that the community is involved in the selection of an appropriate intervention in a school. Additionally, section I.A.2(b)(1) requires an LEA to consider the extent to which any schools currently operated or managed by the selected charter school operator, CMO, or EMO have produced strong results over the prior three years, which creates sufficient safeguards to ensure that the LEA takes appropriate steps to choose a high-quality CMO or EMO. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter asked the Department to clarify whether, under the rigorous review process, an LEA with eligible schools that is in corrective action could meet the new rigorous review requirements and serve as a CMO under the restart model. Discussion: If an LEA can demonstrate that it has produced strong results over the past three years, despite being designated for corrective action, it may meet the requirements of the rigorous review process and serve as a CMO under the restart model. Such a demonstration may be possible, for example, for an LEA that has regularly raised student proficiency rates but still falls short of the 100 percent proficiency requirement under current law in a State that is not approved for ESEA flexibility. Changes: None. Defining “Greatest Need” To Include Priority Schools and Focus Schools for SEAs With Approved ESEA Flexibility Requests Comment: Four commenters supported aligning the definition of “greatest need” with ESEA flexibility. One commenter recommended that the Department permit SEAs to limit SIG eligibility to priority schools only, in order to ensure that limited SIG funding is used in a State's lowest-achieving schools. Discussion: We appreciate the support for aligning the eligibility provisions of the SIG requirements with ESEA flexibility for those SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility requests. As described in question I-9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may create priorities within its application process to, for example, ensure an even distribution of urban and rural schools, incentivize evidence-based strategies, and encourage applications from LEAs without prior compliance issues. With regard to the comment that we should permit an SEA to provide SIG funds to priority schools only, we note that under section II.B.7, an SEA must, in making funding decisions, give priority to LEAs with priority schools, and that under section II.A.7 an LEA must apply to serve all of its priority schools before it may apply to serve one or more focus schools. Accordingly, a focus school may be served under SIG only if the LEA in which it is located is already serving all of its priority schools (or the LEA has no priority schools) and the SEA has already funded all LEAs with priority schools that submit approvable SIG applications. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether a priority school implementing a SIG intervention model may exit priority status while receiving SIG funds. Another commenter asked whether receipt of a SIG award releases the school from the State's priority school requirements and allows it to instead implement a SIG model. Discussion: In general, a school receiving a SIG grant would be deemed to be meeting the priority school requirements of ESEA flexibility and would not have to begin or continue separate implementation of a priority school intervention under the State's approved ESEA flexibility request, unless the SEA has imposed additional requirements. A priority school that has begun implementing either a priority intervention or a SIG intervention may exit priority status but must continue to implement the intervention fully and effectively for the required three years, consistent with section II.A.4 of the requirements. Changes: None. Revising Reporting Requirements Comment: Several commenters supported the proposal to replace the truancy data reporting requirement with a requirement to report data on “chronic absenteeism.” One commenter recommended that the Department hold LEAs and schools implementing SIG models accountable for addressing chronic absenteeism, such as by requiring LEAs to use the data to trigger action when students reach a certain threshold of absences. Discussion: We appreciate the support for the change from truancy data to data on chronic absenteeism. We note that an LEA implementing a SIG model in a school may choose to use chronic absenteeism data to trigger specific interventions; for example, analyzing attendance data and using the results of the analysis to target interventions would be consistent with the expectation that each LEA implementing a SIG model in a school take steps to improve attendance rates at that school. We decline, however, to add this requirement to any of the models because we believe that each model offers a comprehensive approach to school turnaround, including through non-academic supports, and that therefore a separate requirement regarding attendance is not necessary. Changes: None. Comment: Many commenters recommended changing the chronic absenteeism measure from a certain number of days to a percentage of days enrolled, specifically from 15 days to 10 percent of days enrolled. Discussion: We recognize that when absenteeism is being used for early intervention purposes, many authorities recommend that it is best measured as a percentage, comparing the days missed to the days of school already held. However, we have also determined that many LEAs can collect and report data on the number of days missed by each individual student more accurately than they can calculate percentages due to the nature of the data collection, and thus decline to change the proposed measure at this time. Nonetheless, the Department is continuing outreach and analysis to determine the most reliable, valid, and least burdensome chronic absenteeism metric and may modify the current measure in the future if it determines another measure, such as a percentage based measure, is more appropriate. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require LEAs to report school-level data by subgroup on the following metrics: (1) Graduation and dropout rates; (2) advanced course work participation rates; (3) college enrollment rates; (4) discipline incidents; and (5) chronic absenteeism rates. This commenter also recommended adding a metric for college persistence rates, as well as the number and percentage of students participating in advanced course work. Lastly, the commenter recommended that the metric for the distribution of teachers by performance level on an LEA's teacher evaluation system also include the distribution of teachers (1) in their first or second year of teaching; (2) for whom there is insufficient data to receive a rating within the LEA's teacher evaluation system; and (3) teaching outside of their certification area. Discussion: We agree that disaggregated reporting of key participation, attainment, and outcome measures, along with information on the distribution of effective teachers, is a useful and important method for identifying disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes. However, we decline to require LEAs to report on the measures recommended by the commenter due to a combination of (1) concerns over the validity and reliability of reporting data on small populations, such as subgroups within a school or even a district; (2) the availability of data on postsecondary outcomes; and (3) a longstanding emphasis on minimizing data collection and reporting burdens on schools, LEAs, and SEAs. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department use the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) as the data source for discipline incidents rather than ED Facts. The commenter stated that using the CRDC data would reveal disparities in discipline rates among students of color and students with disabilities compared to their peers and provide more actionable data for schools in their school improvement efforts. Discussion: We recognize the value of the detailed data collected and reported via the CRDC, including discipline data. However, because the CRDC is collected biannually, using CRDC data instead of ED Facts data would support less frequent analysis and use of data by schools implementing school improvement models. Changes: None. Requests To Add Additional Models Comment: Many commenters submitted substantially similar requests to add a new “community schools” model to the list of models eligible for funding under the SIG program. Commenters generally defined this model as the leveraging of community resources to provide culturally relevant and rigorous curricula; extended-day instruction; wrap-around supports addressing the physical health, mental health, and social and emotional needs of students; effective professional development for all teachers and staff; positive discipline and social development practices; and strong family and community engagement. More than half of these commenters also recommended making community schools the only turnaround model eligible for SIG funding. Discussion: We agree that the community schools concept can be an effective strategy for building broad support for comprehensive, community-based efforts to turn around low-performing schools. This is why, as noted by one commenter, the 2009 SIG requirements included the similar “community-oriented schools” strategy as a permissible element of the transformation model. Another commenter also recognized the integration of the community schools strategy into the transformation model, observing that the most frequently adopted model (the transformation model) is the one that most closely resembles the community schools concept. Moreover, we believe that the community schools approach is not only fully consistent with the transformation model, but also provides a framework for successful implementation of other existing SIG models, including the turnaround and restart models, as well as the new State-determined model. This is a key reason for the new requirement in section I.A.4(a)(8) that SEAs consider the extent to which an LEA's application for SIG funds, regardless of the model selected, demonstrates how the LEA will meaningfully engage families and the community throughout implementation. We do not believe, however, that the community schools strategy, by itself, would be sufficient to ensure that communities and schools undertake the kind of rigorous, transformational changes required to break the cycle of failure in our lowest-performing schools and maximize the effective use of taxpayer dollars under the SIG program. SIG performance data suggest that the schools adopting the most rigorous interventions, such as changes in leadership and staffing under the turnaround model and new school management under the restart model, generate the highest gains in student achievement. For these reasons, we decline to make “community schools” a new model eligible for funding under the SIG program or to make it the sole model eligible for new SIG funds. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended adding a new high school intervention model because, in the commenter's words, a high school diploma is the gateway to success and the ultimate goal of a K-12 education. This commenter reasoned that the proposed high school intervention model would ensure that high schools implement the strategies that are unique to them and necessary to address the misalignment between student outcomes and the needs of the twenty-first-century workforce. The commenter envisioned the high school intervention model requiring the alignment of reform between low-performing high schools and their feeder middle schools. Many of the requirements in the commenter's suggested model were similar to those in the current and newly proposed SIG models, such as: Job-embedded professional development; evaluation and support systems for teachers and principals that meet the requirements described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii); and ILT, among others. Discussion: We agree that graduating high school is a key to a successful career in the twenty-first century. We believe, however, that offering the commenter's proposed model would overlap with existing SIG models. In particular, there would be overlap with the transformation model, which has many of the same elements as the commenter's suggested high school intervention model. If an SEA wanted to implement a model based on the commenter's high school intervention model, it could do so under the transformation model. Changes: None. Request To Add New Evidence of “Strongest Commitment” Comment: One commenter recommended revising the evidence of strongest commitment requirement in section I.A.4(a) to include a focus on school leadership. More specifically, the commenter suggested requiring LEAs to describe the steps they will take to review the capacity of the school leader, as well as activities designed to build capacity, to lead a successful turnaround prior to full implementation of the selected intervention model. Another commenter requested clarification that the turnaround leader may be someone other than the principal. Discussion: The requirements regarding school leadership vary among the intervention models eligible for funding under the SIG program. The turnaround and transformation models require principal replacement in recognition of the key role played by principals in leading instruction and creating a positive school culture. The restart model relies on dramatic changes in school management and leadership by a high-quality charter school operator, CMO, or EMO. The new evidence-based model may not necessarily involve changes in school leadership. With the limited exception of the State-determined model, the emphasis is on identifying a new school leader who already has demonstrated capacity to lead a school turnaround, and not on building such capacity during the planning or pre-implementation phase of a SIG grant. For this reason, we decline to make the change to section I.A.4(a) recommended by the commenter. We also note that there is nothing in the final requirements that prevents someone other than the principal from serving as the turnaround leader in a SIG school. Changes: None. Promoting Evidence-Based Strategies Comment: One commenter recommended requiring that an SEA give priority in making SIG awards to applicants proposing to implement strategies proven to be effective. Other commenters recommended that the Department require LEAs to demonstrate that their proposed strategies are supported by evidence of effectiveness. Discussion: We agree that SEAs should take into account the extent to which LEA applications for SIG funds include one or more strategies supported by evidence of effectiveness. Accordingly, we are revising section I.A.4(a) of the final requirements to require SEAs to consider such evidence in determining which LEAs have “the strongest commitment” to the effective use of SIG funds and section II.B to allow SEAs to prioritize LEAs that have demonstrated the greatest evidence base for their proposed strategies if funding is not sufficient to permit awards to all LEAs with approvable applications. Changes: We have made three changes in the final requirements to address this comment. First, we added in section I.A.4(a)(13) (Evidence of strongest commitment) a requirement that the SEA, when considering the strength of the LEA's commitment, evaluate the extent to which an LEA demonstrates that it will implement, to the extent practicable, one or more evidence-based strategies (as defined in this notice). We have also added in section II.B.9(b) a requirement that, if an SEA does not have sufficient SIG funds to make awards to each LEA with eligible schools, the SEA may take into account the extent to which an LEA applying for a SIG award demonstrates in its application that it will implement one or more evidence-based strategies (as defined in this notice). Finally, in section I.A.3 we defined “evidence-based strategy” to mean a strategy supported by at least “moderate evidence of effectiveness” as defined in 34 CFR 77.1. New Specific Improvement Strategies Comment: Multiple commenters recommended the use of specific improvement strategies as part of the SIG program, including: offering a comprehensive summer program to students in the bottom quintile of academic performance; promoting the acquisition of 21st century skills; partnering with community-based organizations to provide additional resources and support, including before- and after-school and summer learning programs; aggregating performance data across models to support the identification of best practices, as well as the calculation of the return on investment for each model; providing additional supports to principals; purchasing technology to support a blended learning environment; providing job-embedded professional de [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%3A2015-02570. Public record. Not legal advice.