Att_SFSF Notice of Proposed Revisions supporting Statement 9_14_11

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION

OMB# 1810-0695

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase II

Interim Final Requirements (RIN 1894-AA03)

and

Notice of Proposed Revisions (RIN 1894-AA02)

Introduction: The Department submits this information collection request simultaneously addressing (1) the 60-day public notification requirement of 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1) necessary for reinstating OMB number 1810-0695 for the Interim Final Requirements and (2) the 60-day public notification requirement of 5 CFR 1320.11(a) for the Notice of Proposed Revisions. Additionally, the Department will revise this information collection package at the Final requirements stage and resubmit it to OMB at that time.

A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program¹ provided $48.6 billion to States in exchange for a commitment to advance education reforms in four keys areas: (1) achieving equity in the distribution of highly qualified teachers; (2) building robust data systems that allow districts to better track student achievement; (3) raising standards and strengthening student assessments; and (4) turning around failing schools. For each area of reform, the ARRA prescribes specific actions that a State must assure that it will implement.

The SFSF program is a formula grant program with two distinct portions – the Education Stabilization Fund and the Government Services Fund. By statute, 81.8 percent, or $39,743,348,000, of each State’s total SFSF allocation was awarded under the Education Stabilization Fund (CFDA No. 84.394) and the remaining 18.2 percent, or $8,842,652,000, was awarded under the Government Services Fund (CFDA No. 84.397).

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) has already awarded the SFSF funds to Governors. States received a portion of their funds under the Phase I allocation and the remaining funds under that Phase II allocation. In order to receive the Phase II allocation, States agreed to collect and publicly report, by September 30, 2011, data and other information on certain indicators and descriptors included in the Phase II application. The Office of Management and Budget approved the related information collection under an emergency review (OMB Control Number 1810-0695). The Department’s authority under that information collection has expired. Therefore, in the Interim Final Requirement, the Department is requesting reinstatement of the information collection under OMB Control Number 1810-0695.

The Department recognizes that States may need additional time to meet the requirements of three indicators -- Indicators, (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12). In the Notice of Proposed Revisions, the Department is requesting clearance to collect the following:

1. Requests for an extensions of the deadline from September 30, 2011 to December 31, 2012 for States to develop and implement a longitudinal data system under Indicator (b)(1);

2. Requests for an extension of the deadline from September 30, 2011 to December 31, 2012 for States to collect and publicly report, or develop the capacity to collect and publicly report, student enrollment data under Indicator (c)(11) for high school graduates who attend an in-State public institution of higher education (IHE);

3. Requests for authority to use an alternative standard to meet the requirements of Indicator (c)(11) for high school graduates who attend a private or out-of-State public IHE; and

4. Requests for an extensions of the deadline from September 30, 2011 to December 31, 2012 for States to collect and publicly report, or develop the capacity to collect and publicly report, course completion data under Indicator (c)(12).

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

The requirement to submit a deadline extension request and a plan to meet the requirements of the Indicators by December 31, 2012 are new collection requests. The information will be used by the Department to determine the State’s need for an extension and its ability to fulfill the requirements of the Indicators by the deadline. The Department will review the deadline extension request and, if the required elements are completed, the extension will be granted. Upon receipt of the plan to meet the requirements of the Indicators by December 31, 2012, the Department will review and approve if the plan reasonably and adequately explains how the State will fulfill the Indicator requirements by the deadline.

The information collection proposed in the Interim Final Requirement will reinstate the collection (OMB Control Number 1810-0695) approved under the Phase II application. The requirement to publicly report on Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11) and (c)(12), in the Notice of Proposed Revisions, is an extension of collection 1810-0695. The Department has used the information collected from the original collection to assess the capacity of States to collect and report information related to the assurances they committed to for Phase I of Stabilization. A State must demonstrate its ability to meet specific data and information requirements (the assurance indicators and descriptors) with respect to the statutory assurances. This information has provided transparency on the extent to which a State is implementing the actions for which it has provided assurances. Furthermore, this information collected on State capacity in these areas has been used to inform the development of other Department grants.

States are required to modify an existing website to fulfill the public reporting requirements. The website will contain the actual data requested under each indicator, if available. If not collected or available for reporting, the website will say as much for each applicable indicator or descriptor. The purpose in this requirement is to ensure that the data are publicly available and accessible to all stakeholders.

The requirement to collect and publicly report information on the Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard is a new requirement but fulfills the same purpose as publicly reporting the Indicators discussed above.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision of adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

The information requested under this collection will be gathered by email, fax, or other non-electronic means such as courier or postal service. The Department is not employing electronic means beyond email for this collection due to the short timeframe of the collection process. The employment of electronic means such as an online grants application or data warehouse would require additional time to set up the appropriate structure. The Department expects no more than 47 requests, and therefore has sufficient capacity to deal with the number of email or paper-based submissions. The information gathered through this process is detailed in A2.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use of the purposes described in Item 2 above.

The information requested under the collection in the Notice of Propose Revisions is unique to the SFSF program and has not been collected by the Department in the past.

The information requested under the collection in the Interim Final Requirement is unique to the SFSF program, and most of it has not been collected by the Department in the past. Furthermore, the assurances under which the indicators and descriptors fall are unique to the Stabilization program and, as such, no previous collection can provide the necessary information.

However, out of the 36 indicators and descriptors, 10 reflect information that the Department has on file. As such, the Department made every effort to reduce the burden on States in producing the information. We compiled the information for those 10 indicators on a Department website where States can review their information and verify that it is correct. The information compiled by the Department from available sources are listed in the following table:

Indicator	Available Data
(a)(1) Confirm, for the State, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of core academic courses taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty schools, by teachers who are highly qualified consistent with section 9101(23) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).	As part of the annual Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR), each State provides data on the number and percentage of core academic courses that are taught by highly qualified teachers in high- and low-poverty schools. (See http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/sy07-08part1/index.html.) The Department will ask States to confirm data reflected in the most recent CSPR. The data to confirm will be provided in PDF format on a Department website at the following link: http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/confirm-indicators.html. This link will be activated once the applications are available to the public.
(a)(2) Confirm whether the State’s Teacher Equity Plan (as part of the State’s Highly Qualified Teacher Plan) fully reflects the steps the State is currently taking to ensure that students from low-income families and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers (as required in section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA).	Each state is required to create and follow a High Qualified Teacher Plan, which includes a Teacher Equity Plan. These plans are posted on the Department’s website. For the purposes of the Stabilization Phase II application, States will be required to go to a URL (see http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtplans/index.html) to locate their State’s plan and verify that the Teacher Equity Plan is up-to-date and accurate.
(c)(1) Confirm the approval status, as determined by the Department, of the State’s assessment system under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA with respect to reading/language arts, mathematics, and science assessments; (c)(2) Confirm whether the State has developed and implemented valid and reliable alternate assessments for students with disabilities that are approved by the Department; (c)(3) Confirm whether the State’s alternate assessments for students with disabilities, if approved by the Department, are based on grade-level, modified, or alternate academic achievement standards; (c)(7) Confirm whether the State provides native language versions of State assessments for limited English proficient students that are approved by the Department.	In regards to these three indicators, the Department maintains records of the approval status of each State’s assessment system, including those that are provided in the native language of limited English proficient students, and alternate assessments based on various achievement standards. The current approval status for each State will be provided in PDF format on a Department website at the following link: http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/confirm-indicators.html. This link will be activated once the applications are available to the public.
(c)(5) Confirm the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of students with disabilities who are included in State reading/language arts and mathematics assessments; (c)(8) Confirm the number and percentage (include numerator and denominator) of limited English proficient students who are included in State reading/language arts and mathematics assessments; (d)(10) Confirm, for the State and for each LEA in the State that operates charter schools, the number of charter schools currently operating.	In regards to these three indicators requesting information on students participating in assessments and charter schools in each State, the data are separately reported by States to the Department and available on EDFacts. The Department will pull the data from EDFacts and provided them in PDF format on a Department website at the following link: http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/confirm-indicators.html. This link will be activated once the applications are available to the public.
(c)(9) Confirm that the State’s annual State Report Card (under ESEA section 1111(h)(1)) contains the most recent available State reading and mathematics NAEP results as required by 34 CFR 200.11(c).	Instead of requiring States to separately report the most recent available reading and mathematics NAEP results, the Department is requesting that States provide the URL to where the data are located.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 8b of IC Data Part 2), describe any methods used to minimize burden.

The eligible applicants for the SFSF program are Offices of the Governor.

In order to reduce the burden on local educational agencies and institutions of higher education, the Department is using data that is currently collected in order to address the required indicators and descriptors. When new information collection is required, the Department has made every effort to ensure that the required collection is absolutely necessary to meet the requirements of the program.

6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

The consequence of not reinstating the information collection approved under the original Phase II application would be that States would not be able to fulfill the requirements of the SFSF program. All of the money has been distributed to States but they continue to have an obligation to fulfill the requirements of the program. If this work is not completed, the Department and the States would be out of compliance with the SFSF provision of ARRA and the approved SFSF applications.

The consequence of not conducting the collection of information in the Notice of Proposed Revisions would be that States would not be able to request an extension for fulfilling the requirements of Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12) or submit a request to use an alternate standard for Indicator (c)(11). By denying States this option, some may fail to meet the requirements of the SFSF program. The information in the requests is needed to assess each State’s ability to meet the requirements of the specified indicators by the revised deadline.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:

• requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

• requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

• requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

• requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;

• in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results than can be generalized to the universe of study;

• requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

• that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or

• requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

This collection is consistent with 5 CFR 1320.5.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instruction and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years – even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

The Department received many comments related to data collection and burden during the public comment period on the notice of proposed priorities for SFSF Phase II. These comments were addressed in the final priorities. Additionally, the public will have the opportunity to comment during the comment period for the notice of proposed revisions and the interim final requirements.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

No payments or gifts to respondents have been made.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

There is no assurance of confidentiality.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. The justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

There are no questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should :

• Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.

• If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in item 16 of IC Data Part 1.

• Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents of the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should not be included in Item 14.

Interim Final Requirement Burden

Burden Hours for Respondents

The Department expects that States, local education agencies (LEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs) will submit information in order for States to complete this work. The burden estimate for each entity is described below.

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Indicators and Descriptors

I. Assurance Indicators and Descriptors Burden Hours/Cost for SEAS

Citation	Description	Number of respondents	Average hours per response*	Total hours	Total cost (total hours x $30.00)
Indicator (a)(1)	Confirm, for the State, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of core academic courses taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty schools, by teachers who are highly qualified consistent with section 9101(23) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (a)(2)	Confirm whether the State’s Teacher Equity Plan (as part of the State’s Highly Qualified Teacher Plan) fully reflects the steps the State is currently taking to ensure that students from low-income families and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers (as required in section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA).	52	1	52	$1,560
Descriptor (a)(1)	Describe, for each local educational agency (LEA) in the State, the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers and the use of results from those systems in decisions regarding teacher development, compensation, promotion, retention, and removal.	52	118	6,158	$184,740
Indicator (a)(3)	Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers include student achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation criterion.	52	4	208	$6,240
Indicator (a)(4)	Provide, for each LEA in the State whose teachers receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of teachers rated at each performance rating or level.	52	2	104	$3,120
Indicator (a)(5)	Indicate, for each LEA in the State whose teachers receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, whether the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of teachers rated at each performance rating or level are publicly reported for each school in the LEA.	52	1	52	$1,560
Descriptor (a)(2)	Describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems used to evaluate the performance of principals and the use of results from those systems in decisions regarding principal development, compensation, promotion, retention, and removal.	52	118	6,158	$184,740
Indicator (a)(6)	Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of principals include student achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation criterion.	52	4	208	$6,240
Indicator (a)(7)	Provide, for each LEA in the State whose principals receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of principals rated at each performance rating or level.	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (b)(1)	Indicate which of the 12 elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act are included in the State’s statewide longitudinal data system.	52	2	104	$3,120
Indicator (b)(2)	Indicate whether the State provides student growth data on their current students and the students they taught in the previous year to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in those subjects, in a manner that is timely and informs instructional programs.	52	.5	26	$780
Indicator (b)(3)	Indicate whether the State provides teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in those subjects with reports of individual teacher impact on student achievement on those assessments.	52	.5	26	$780
Indicator (c)(1)	Confirm the approval status, as determined by the Department, of the State’s assessment system under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA with respect to reading/language arts, mathematics, and science assessments.	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (c)(2)	Confirm whether the State has developed and implemented valid and reliable alternate assessments for students with disabilities that are approved by the Department.	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (c)(3)	Confirm whether the State’s alternate assessments for students with disabilities, if approved by the Department, are based on grade-level, modified, or alternate academic achievement standards.	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (c)(4)	Indicate whether the State has completed, within the last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the accommodations it provides students with disabilities to ensure their meaningful participation in State assessments.	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (c)(5)	Confirm the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of students with disabilities who are included in State reading/language arts and mathematics assessments.	52	.5	26	$780
Indicator (c)(6)	Indicate whether the State has completed, within the last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the accommodations it provides limited English proficient students to ensure their meaningful participation in State assessments.	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (c)(7)	Confirm whether the State provides native language versions of State assessments for limited English proficient students that are approved by the Department.	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (c)(8)	Confirm the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of limited English proficient students who are included in State reading/language arts and mathematics assessments.	52	.5	26	$780
Indicator (c)(9)	Confirm that the State’s annual State Report Card (under section 1111(h)(1) of the ESEA) contains the most recent available State reading and mathematics National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results as required by 34 CFR 200.11(c).	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (c)(10)	Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the State and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of students who graduate from high school using a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate as required by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i).	52	3	156	$4,680
Indicator (c)(11)	Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the State and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) who enroll in an institution of Higher education (IHE) (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)) within 16 months of receiving a regular high school diploma.	52	5,192	269,980	$8,099,400
Indicator (c)(12)	Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the State and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in a public IHE (as defined in section 101(a) of the HEA) in the State within 16 months of receiving a regular high school diploma, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) who complete at least one year’s worth of college credit (applicable to a degree) within two years of enrollment in the IHE.	52	40	2,080	$62,400
Indicator (d)(1)	Provide, for the State, the average statewide school gain in the “all students” category and the average statewide school gain for each student subgroup (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA) on the State assessments in reading/language arts and for the State and for each LEA in the State, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have made progress (as defined in this notice) on State assessments in reading/language arts in the last year.	52	5	260	$7,800
Indicator (d)(2)	Provide, for the State, the average statewide school gain in the “all students” category and the average statewide school gain for each student subgroup (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA) on State assessments in mathematics and for the State and for each LEA in the State, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have made progress on State assessments in mathematics in the last year.	52	5	260	$7,800
Descriptor (d)(1)	Provide the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” (consistent with the requirements for defining this term set forth in this notice) that the State uses to identify such schools.	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (d)(3)	Provide, for the State, the number and identity of the schools that are Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, that are identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools.	52	2	104	$3,120
Indicator (d)(4)	Provide, for the State, of the persistently lowest-achieving schools that are Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the number and identity of those schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed (as defined in this notice) in the last year.	52	1	52	$1,560
Indicator (d)(5)	Provide, for the State, the number and identity of the schools that are secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, that are identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools.	52	4	208	$6,240
Indicator (d)(6)	Provide, for the State, of the persistently lowest-achieving schools that are secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, the number and identity of those schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed in the last year.	52	4	208	$6,240
Indicator (d)(7)	Provide, for the State and, if applicable, for each LEA in the State, the number of charter schools that are currently permitted to operate under State law.	52	.5	26	$780
Indicator (d)(8)	Confirm, for the State and for each LEA in the State that operates charter schools, the number of charter schools currently operating.	52	.5	26	$780
Indicator (d)(9)	Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the State that operates charter schools, the number and percentage of charter schools that have made progress on State assessments in reading/language arts in the last year.	42	2	84	$2,520
Indicator (d)(10)	Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the State that operates charter schools, the number and percentage of charter schools that have made progress on State assessments in mathematics in the last year.	42	2	84	$2,520
Indicator (d)(11)	Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the State that operates charter schools, the number and identity of charter schools that have closed (including schools that were not reauthorized to operate) within each of the last five years.	42	2	84	$2,520
Indicator (d)(12)	Indicate, for each charter school that has closed (including a school that was not reauthorized to operate) within each of the last five years, whether the closure of the school was for financial, enrollment, academic, or other reasons.	42	2	84	$2,520
Total Burden Hours/Cost for SEAs				287,424	$8,622,720

*Figures in this column may reflect rounding.

II. Assurance Indicators and Descriptors Burden Hours/Cost for LEAs

Citation	Description	Number of respondents	Average hours per response*		Total hours	Total cost (total hours x $25.00)
Descriptor (a)(1)	Describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers and the use of results from those systems in decisions regarding teacher development, compensation, promotion retention, and removal.	15,224	1.78		27,114	$677,850
Indicator (a)(3)	Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers include student achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation criterion.	12,737	.1		850	$21,250
Indicator (a)(4)	Provide, for each LEA in the State whose teachers receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of teachers rated at each performance rating or level.	12,040	23.7		285,000	$7,125,000
Indicator (a)(5)	Indicate, for each LEA in the State whose teachers receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, whether the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of teachers rated at each performance rating or level are publicly reported for each school in the LEA.	12,040	.5		5,955	$148,875
Descriptor (a)(2)	Describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems used to evaluate the performance of principals and the use of results from those systems in decisions regarding principal development, compensation, promotion, retention, and removal.	15,224	1.78		27,113	$677,825
Indicator (a)(6)	Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of principals include student achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation criterion.	12,737	.1		850	$21,250
Indicator (a)(7)	Provide, for each LEA in the State whose principals receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of principals rated at each performance rating or level.	12,040	.47		5,700	$142,500
Indicator (c)(10)	Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the State and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of students who graduate from high school using a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate as required by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i).	1,053	40		42,120	$1,053,000
Indicator (c)(11)	Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the State and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) who enroll in an IHE (as defined in section 101(a) of the HEA) within 16 months of receiving a regular high school diploma.	15,224	9.26		141,000	$3,525,000
Indicator (d)(4)	Provide, for the State, of the persistently lowest-achieving Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the number and identity of schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed in the last year.	4,729	2		9,458	$236,450
Indicator (d)(5)	Provide, for the State, the number and identity of the secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, that are identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools.	4,729	2		9,458	$236,450
Indicator (d)(6)	Provide, for the State, of the persistently lowest-achieving secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, the number and identity of schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed in the last year.	4,729	2		9,458	$236,450
Total Burden Hours/Cost for LEAs				564,076		$14,101,900

*Figures in this column may reflect rounding.

III. Assurance Indicators and Descriptors Burden Hours/Cost for IHEs

Citation	Description	Number of respondents	Average hours per response*	Total hours	Total cost (total hours x $25.00)
Indicator (c)(11)	Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the State and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the number and percentage(including numerator and denominator) who enroll in an IHE (as defined in section 101(a) of the HEA) within 16 months of receiving a regular high school diploma.	4,409	31.98	141,000	$3,525,000
Indicator (c)(12)	Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the State and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in a public IHE (as defined in section 101(a) of the HEA) in the State within 16 months of receiving a regular high school diploma, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) who complete at least one year’s worth of college credit (applicable to a degree) within two years of enrollment in the IHE.	1,676	50.47	84,584	$2,114,600
Total Burden Hours/Cost for IHEs				225,584		$5,639,600

*Figures in this column may reflect rounding.

The Department estimates that the total burden of responding to these requirements will be 1,077,084 hours² at a cost of $28,364,220.

Notice of Proposed Revisions Burden

Burden Hours for Respondents

The Department estimates that approximately 47 States will submit information associated with the collection in the Notice of Proposed Revisions. In addition to the information that each State will collect, local education agencies (LEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs) will also be required to submit information in order for States to complete this work. The burden estimate for each entity is described below

Burden associated with Indicator (b)(1)

Indicator	Time burden per respondent	Basis for calculation
(b)(1): request for deadline extension	8 hours (State burden)	Time needed to complete extension request
(b)(1): plan revision	8 hours (State burden)	Time needed to complete plan revision
(b)(1): collect and report required information	1 hour (State burden)	Time needed to collect and report required information
Total State burden per respondent	17 hours
No LEA or IHE burden is expected for (b)(1)

The average burden hours for Indicator (b)(1) is estimated to be 17 hours per respondent. The Department expects that 40 States will need to complete the requirements associated with (b)(1). This equals a total burden of 680 hours for Indicator (b)(1).

Cost for Respondents

The Department estimates that the per-hour cost at the State staff level will average $30 per person per hour for a total of $20,400.

Burden associated with Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard

Indicator	Time burden per respondent	Basis for calculation
(c)(11): request for use of alternative standard	8 hours (State burden)	Time needed to request use of alternative standard
(c)(11):plan revision	8 hours (State burden)	Time needed to complete plan revision
(c)(11):collecting and reporting associated information	40 hours (State burden)	Time needed to collect and report required information
Total State burden per respondent	56 hours
No LEA or IHE burden is expected for (c)(11) alternative standard

The average burden hours for the Indicator (c)(11) alternative standard is estimated to be 56 hours per respondent. The Department expects that 43 States will request use of the (c)(11) alternative standard. Accordingly, the estimated total burden hours for the (c)(11) alternative standard is 2,408.

Cost for Respondents

The Department estimates that the per-hour cost at the State staff level will average $30 per person per hour for a total of $72,240.

Burden associated with Indicator (c)(11)

Indicator	Time burden per respondent	Basis for calculation
(c)(11): request for deadline extension	8 hours (State burden)	Time needed to complete extension request
(c)(11): plan revision	8 hours (State burden)	Time needed to complete plan revision
(c)(11): provide information associated with Indicator	40 hours (State burden)	Time needed to provide information associated with Indicator
Total State burden per respondent	56 hours
(c)(11): provide information associated with Indicator	6.31 hours (LEA burden)	Time needed to provide information associated with Indicator
(c)(11): provide information associated with Indicator	50.47 (IHE burden)	Time needed to provide information associated with Indicator

*No LEA burden is expected for (c)(12)

The average burden hours for Indicator (c)(11) is estimated to be 56 hours per State. The Department expects that 43 States will need to provide information associated with this Indicator. Accordingly, the estimated total burden hours for (c)(11) for States is 2,408.

The 13,409 LEAs located in those 43 States would need to provide information associated with Indicator (c)(11). Based on an estimate of the total number of students enrolled in public IHEs in their home State, and based on the assumption that LEAs could provide this information at a rate of 20 students per hour, we estimate that these LEAs will require a total of 84,584 hours to comply with the requirements for Indicator (c)(11). Divided by the total number of affected LEAs, we estimate that each LEA would require 6.31 hours to provide this information

Again, based on our estimate of the total number of students enrolled in public IHEs in their home State and the assumption that IHEs could provide this information at a rate of 20 students per hour, we estimate that, a total of 84,584 hours would be required for the 1,676 IHEs in the 43 affected States to respond to this requirement. On average, each IHE would need 50.47 hours to provide the information associated with Indicator (c)(11).

The total average burden hours for Indicator (c)(11) is estimated to be 171,576

Cost for Respondents

The Department estimates that the per-hour cost at the State staff level will average $30 per person per hour for a total of $72,240.

The Department estimates that the per-hour cost at the LEA staff level will average $25 per person per hour for a total of $2,114,597

The Department estimates that the per-hour cost at the IHE staff level will average $25 per person per hour for a total of $2,114,597.

The total estimated cost for Indicator (c)(11) is $4,301,434.

Burden associated with Indicator (c)(12)

Indicator	Time burden per respondent	Basis for calculation
(c)(12): request for deadline extension	8 hours (State burden)	Time needed to complete extension request
(c)(12): plan revision	8 hours (State burden)	Time needed to complete plan revision
(c)(12): provide information associated with Indicator	20 hours (State burden)	Time needed to provide information associated with Indicator
Total State burden per respondent	36 hours
(c)(12): provide information associated with Indicator	36.68 (IHE burden)	Time needed to provide information associated with Indicator
No LEA burden is expected for (c)(12)

The average burden hours for Indicator (c)(12) is estimated to be 36 hours per State. The Department expects that 47 States will need to provide information associated with this Indicator. Accordingly, the estimated total burden hours for (c)(12) for States is 1,692.

The 1,555 IHEs located in these States would be required to report information on the number of students who have completed at least one year’s worth of college credit within two years of enrollment in the IHE. Based on data from the Digest of Education Statistics, we estimate that 1,140,855 first-time freshmen are enrolled in degree-granting in-State public IHEs in the 47 States that have not yet met this requirement. We estimate that IHEs could provide this information at a rate of 20 students per hour, which leads to approximately 57,043 hours of total effort across the affected IHEs. By dividing this total number of hours by the 1,555 public IHEs in the 47 States, we estimate that, on average, an IHE would need 36.68 hours to collect and report the information associated with Indicator (c)(12).

The total average burden hours for Indicator (c)(12) is estimated to be 58,735.

Total Cost for Respondents

The Department estimates that the per-hour cost at the State staff level will average $30 per person per hour for a total of $50,760.

The Department estimates that the per-hour cost at the IHE staff level will average $25 per person per hour for a total of $1,426,069.

The total estimated cost for Indicator (c)(12) is $1,476,829.

The total estimated cost for complying with the proposed requirements in this notice is $5,870,903. The total estimated burden for complying with the proposed requirements in this notice is 233,399.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14.)

• The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life); and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.

• If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.

• Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

Total Annualized Capital/Startup Cost : 0

Total Annual Costs (O&M) : 0

____________________

Total Annualized Costs Requested : 0

There are no start-up costs for this collection.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

The Federal costs will involve reviewing the deadline extension requests, assessing the State plans, and verifying that the information is reported properly.

• Grade 12: 40 hours at $35.88/hour=$1435.20

• Grade 13: 12 hours at $42.66/hour = $511.92

• Grade 14: 1 hours at $50.41/hour = $50.41

• Grade 15: 3 hours at $59.30/hour = $177.90

Estimated Federal cost = $2,175.43

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments to #16f of the IC Data Part 1 Form.

The burden hours are increasing under the notice of proposed revisions because the Department has identified a need to collect deadline extension requests and amended plans in order to allow States additional time to meet the requirements of the SFSF program.

The burden hours are increasing under the Interim Final Requirements because the original collection has expired and needs to be reinstated in order to allow States additional time to meet the requirements of the SFSF program. The burden is increasing slightly from the original Phase II information collection because of an increase in the number of students attending IHEs. The increase in the number of students led to a higher average burden for IHEs and LEAs. The increase for LEAs and IHEs contributed to a higher average burden overall.

The Department is requesting an extension of the deadline for fulfilling the requirements of the Phase II Indicators and Descriptors until January 31, 2012 and requesting that the burden associated with these requirements be reinstated. The total burden is 1,077,084 hours. After this date, the remaining burden will apply only to States that requested an extension for meeting the requirements of (b)(1), (c)(11), and (c)(12) and those that requested use of the alternative standard for (c)(11). The burden for requesting an extension or use of the alternative standard, providing a plan to meet the requirements of the Indicators, and collecting and reporting on the Indicators is 233,424 hours. This represents a net decrease of 843,660 hours from the hours being reinstated in the Interim Final Requirements.

As noted in the above Introduction, the Department will revise this information collection package at the Final requirements stage and resubmit it to OMB at that time.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Some of the information collected in this grant application may be analyzed with performance data and shared on a government website such as recovery.gov or ed.gov.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The expiration date will be displayed on the form.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in the Certification of Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Department is not requesting any exception to the Certification.

1 The excerpt from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 relevant to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund may be accessed at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/statutory/stabilization-fund.pdf

2 The Department acknowledges that a number of States have completed the work associated with many of the Phase II Indicators and Descriptors and has taken this into account in calculating the burden for this reinstatement. The Department recognizes that even though some of the work has been completed, the estimated total burden for responding to these requirements has increased slightly from the total burden approved in the November 2009 Notice. This increase is due to an increased number of students attending institutions of higher education. The increase in the number of students led to a higher average burden for IHEs and LEAs. The increase for LEAs and IHEs contributed to a higher average burden overall.

33