[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31028-31031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12583]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0038; CFDA Number 84.015A]
Final Priorities; National Resource Centers Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education
announces two priorities for the National Resource Centers (NRC)
Program administered by the International and Foreign Language
Education Office. The Assistant Secretary may use these priorities for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years.
We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an
identified national need. We intend these priorities to address a gap
in the types of institutions, faculty, and students that have
historically benefited from the resources available at NRCs and to
address a shortage in the number of teachers entering the teaching
profession with global competency and world language training,
certification, or credentials.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities are effective June 30, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl E. Gibbs, U.S. Department of
Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6083, Washington, DC 20006, K-OPE-
6078. Telephone: (202) 502-7634 or by email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The NRC Program provides grants to institutions
of higher education or consortia of such institutions to establish,
strengthen, and operate comprehensive and undergraduate foreign
language and area or international studies centers that will be
national resources for (a) teaching of any modern foreign language; (b)
instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas,
regions, or countries in which the modern language is commonly used;
(c) research and training in international studies and the
international and foreign language aspects of professional and other
fields of study; and (d) instruction and research on issues in world
affairs that concern one or more countries.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 655 and 656.
We published a notice of proposed priorities for this program in
the Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15077). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities.
There are differences between the proposed priorities and these
final priorities as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
section elsewhere in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priorities, 25 parties submitted comments on the proposed
priorities.
We discuss substantive issues under the number of the item to which
they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
any changes in the priorities since publication of the notice of
proposed priorities follows.
Priority 1--Applications that propose significant and sustained
collaborative activities with one or more Minority-Serving Institutions
(MSIs) or one or more community colleges
Comment: Several commenters stated that by defining an MSI for the
purpose of this priority using eligibility under the programs
authorized by Title III or Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended (HEA), the Department unduly limits the pool of institutions
with which NRCs could potentially collaborate. They also observed that
opportunities to reach and impact substantially more underrepresented
and underserved populations will be missed if NRC institutions only
collaborate with institutions that are eligible to receive assistance
under Title III or Title V of the HEA. The commenters suggested
alternative strategies to give NRC institutions more flexibility in
achieving the access and diversity goals of the priority. For example,
one institutional commenter noted that there are no Title III or V
institutions in its State, but, to fulfill its urban access mission, it
serves high enrollments of low-income, underrepresented, and minority
students through a long-standing partnership with the local public
school system. When students from the local public school system are
admitted as undergraduate students, they are familiar with, and more
likely to participate in, area studies and world language courses and
study abroad opportunities. The same commenter also noted that to
support underrepresented, low-income, and underserved students, the
institution has established valuable partnerships with local agencies
so that a continuum of resources is available to low-income and
minority students before and after they are admitted to the
institution. The commenter suggested that encouraging grantees to
devise innovative strategies and partnerships that respond to local
circumstances in order to reach more low-income and minority students
is more consistent with the Department's emphasis on outcome-based
performance measures than is requiring grantees to respond to a
proscribed priority.
A rural institution commented that it does not have an MSI or a
community college in its geographic locale. It observed that
partnerships with MSIs and community colleges should not be prioritized
over a rural institution's capacity to provide area studies courses and
less commonly taught language
[[Page 31029]]
training to undergraduate students who are underrepresented minorities.
The commenter also suggested that, instead of requiring collaborative
activities with MSIs or community colleges, an NRC should be able to
meet the priority by incorporating international dimensions into the
NRC institution's undergraduate curriculum. According to the commenter,
this would serve to attract and retain minority students and permit the
NRC to focus its instruction and outreach efforts on underrepresented
undergraduates on its campus, with the goal of increasing diversity in
area studies programs.
Two commenters observed that many NRC institutions independently
serve high numbers of underrepresented, underserved, or minority
students, and if they have to allocate limited financial resources to
support external collaborative activities, this will further strain
their budgets and divert institutional resources from their students
who are equally deserving of international education training
opportunities. Another commenter noted that although it is both an MSI
and an NRC institution, its internal activities and programming to
support underrepresented and underserved groups do not meet the intent
of the priority because the priority focuses on proposing collaborative
activities with other MSIs. The commenter suggested that, in cases
where an NRC institution is also a Title III- or Title V-eligible MSI,
this priority should allow such an institution to focus on intra-campus
collaborative activities as well as on collaborative activities with
other MSIs and community colleges.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern that the
definition of MSI is too narrow for the purpose of the priority and the
alternative strategies they offered. However, we do not believe that
the suggested strategies would achieve an important goal of this
priority, which is to provide Title III and Title V institutions
opportunities to access the resources available at Title VI
institutions, through collaboration among Title III, Title V, and Title
VI institutions. Further, institutions that are eligible to receive
assistance under Title III, part A, Title III, part B, and Title V
include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
predominately black institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, and
tribal colleges, among others. Accordingly, NRC institutions have a
variety of options for collaboration, covering a wide range of
underrepresented and underserved populations. Considering that
community colleges are also included in this priority, we believe that
there is sufficient opportunity for applicants to meet this priority.
We, therefore, do not agree that the definition of an MSI for the
purposes of this priority is too narrow.
We also believe that there are sufficient opportunities for
collaboration between an NRC institution that is not in close proximity
to MSIs or community colleges. For example, the institution may, among
other things, use technology to connect with other institutions or
offer faculty travel grants to bring faculty to the institution.
In regard to the concerns about using limited NRC grant funds to
conduct the collaboration activities described in the priority, we do
not think that the activities, if planned cost-effectively, will
require significant portions of grant funds. In addition, the goal is
not only to reach underserved students but to support collaboration
with Title III and Title V institutions to improve international
education on their campuses.
For an applicant that meets the definition of an MSI, we agree that
it is appropriate to allow that institution to meet the priority by
conducting intra-campus collaborative activities instead of, or in
addition to, collaborative activities with other MSIs or community
colleges. An example of an intra-campus collaborative activity would be
a project involving the faculty in the Department of Social Sciences
and the Portuguese language instructors to develop a language across
the curriculum course about food security issues in Latin America.
Changes: We have revised the priority language to permit
institutions that are eligible under Title III or Title V to propose
intra-campus collaborative activities instead of, or in addition to,
collaborative activities with other MSIs or community colleges.
Comment: One commenter suggested that it would be helpful if we
provide a list of eligible Title III, part A, Title III, part B, and
Title V institutions.
Discussion: We agree that making this information readily available
to applicants will help them in addressing and meeting this priority.
Changes: None. We will provide the information on the institutions
that currently meet this definition in the notice inviting
applications.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we remove the singular
modifier before MSI and before community college to clarify that
collaborative activities may be proposed with more than one MSI or more
than one community college.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter's suggestion and are making
this change to ensure we do not limit the number of entities that are
able to collaborate under this priority.
Changes: We have revised the priority to make it clear that an
institution can collaborate with multiple MSIs or community colleges.
Priority 2--Collaborative activities with schools or colleges of
education
Comment: All commenters expressed concern about priority 2 because
many institutions of higher education do not have a school or college
of education or do not provide pre-service teacher certification
training. They further observed that at many institutions, pre-service
teacher training is offered through the schools of social sciences,
liberal arts, or natural sciences, or the college of arts and sciences
or through emerging models in teacher credential programs that are
decentralized outside of the schools or colleges of education. The same
commenters recommended that we revise the proposed priority to include
options such as teacher credentialing programs, programs of teacher
education, or post-baccalaureate programs. Three commenters recommended
that we revise the priority to permit institutions that do not have
schools or colleges of education to collaborate with institutions in
their geographical location that have schools or colleges of education.
Similarly, all commenters recommended that we expand the priority to
allow applicants to propose collaborative activities with colleges or
schools of education on or off the NRC campus.
Discussion: We agree with these suggestions. We believe that these
revisions will offer more flexibility and reflect how different
institutions of higher education operate in practice, while ensuring
that the intent and objectives of the priority are still met. In
addition, we note that the units listed in the final priority are not
exhaustive, meaning that an institution could also collaborate with
similar types of units that are not specifically mentioned in the
priority and institutions that are on or off the NRC campus.
Changes: We have revised the priority to allow collaboration with
units such as schools or colleges of education, schools of liberal arts
and sciences, post-baccalaureate teacher education programs, and
teacher preparation programs. We also have expanded the priority to
permit collaborative activities with units or institutions that are on
or off the NRC campus.
[[Page 31030]]
Comment: Several commenters raised concerns that the priority does
not take into consideration that there is a limited job market for new
teachers with credentials to teach less commonly taught languages
(LCTLs), partly because LCTLs are not integrated into kindergarten
through grade 12 (K-12) education or supported by the States.
Specifically, one commenter noted that giving priority to NRCs that
contribute to the training and credentialing of new teachers is
particularly problematic for NRCs that focus on languages and world
areas such as Southeast Asia (SEA), because world areas like SEA are
almost entirely absent from State-mandated K-12 curricula. The
commenter further noted that through the training of Ph.D., Master of
Arts, and Bachelor of Arts students, an NRC institution that focuses on
SEA is educating the future post-secondary teachers of Southeast Asian
Studies, thereby meeting a vital national interest. Similarly, another
commenter cited the discontinuance of its Russian language teaching
program due to low enrollment in the face of a weak job market. The
commenter argued against encouraging students to pursue a teaching
certification when there is no market for the credential.
Another commenter recommended that we either eliminate the portion
of the priority regarding credentialing more foreign language teachers
or tailor the priority to those specific LCTLs that require additional
teachers to meet existing and expected future instructional needs
within the K-12 system.
Another commenter suggested that we remove the last clause in the
proposed priority relating to the credentialing of foreign language
teachers because the commenter believed that LCTL instruction is
adequately addressed by the first clause regarding the integration of
world languages into teacher education. The commenter stated that
teachers who are hired to teach other content courses but who also have
foreign language training often have the opportunity to expose students
to LCTLs in conjunction with other teaching activities. The commenter
further noted that the first part of the priority already addresses
this indirect path by which the NRCs can support and encourage the
inclusion of more language instruction in elementary through secondary
school classrooms. Encouraging teachers in training to study LCTLs has
the potential to increase the overall availability of instruction in
LCTLs in regular classroom activities.
Discussion: We do not agree that the portion of the priority
relating to the credentialing of foreign language teachers is
adequately addressed by the first part of the priority regarding the
integration of world languages into teacher education. The preparation
and credentialing of foreign language teachers in LCTLs is a distinct
and formal process that might not necessarily occur under the broader
collaboration categories in the first clause. We wish to encourage
preparation and credentialing of foreign language teachers in LCTLs to
the extent that there is demand for teachers of those languages, and
therefore will maintain that option in the priority. Nonetheless, this
activity is not required to meet this priority.
However, the commenters have provided a sound rationale to revise
the priority as it relates to the credentialing of foreign language
teachers in LCTLs. We agree that, due to limited State support and the
lack of integration of language teaching into elementary and secondary
education nationwide, there is low or no demand for teachers of some
LCTLs. Accordingly, we agree with the suggestion that we limit the
priority to LCTLs for which there is a demand for additional teachers
to meet existing and expected future K-12 language program needs.
Changes: We have revised the priority to allow applicants to focus
their teacher preparation and credentialing efforts on those specific
LCTLs for which there is a demand for additional teachers to meet
existing and expected future K-12 language program needs.
Final Priorities
Priority 1
Applications that propose significant and sustained collaborative
activities with one or more Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) (as
defined in this notice) or with one or more community colleges (as
defined in this notice). These activities must be designed to
incorporate international, intercultural, or global dimensions into the
curriculum at the MSI(s) or community college(s), and to improve
foreign language, area, and international studies or international
business instruction at the MSI(s) or community college(s). If an
applicant institution is an MSI or a community college (as defined in
this notice), that institution may propose intra-campus collaborative
activities instead of, or in addition to, collaborative activities with
other MSIs or community colleges.
For the purpose of this priority:
Community college means an institution that meets the definition in
section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)
(20 U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an institution of higher education (as defined
in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that awards degrees and
certificates, more than 50 percent of which are not bachelor's degrees
(or an equivalent) or master's, professional, or other advanced
degrees.
Minority-Serving Institution means an institution that is eligible
to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of Title
III, under part B of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA.
Priority 2
Applications that propose collaborative activities with units such
as schools or colleges of education, schools of liberal arts and
sciences, post-baccalaureate teacher education programs, and teacher
preparation programs on or off the national resource center campus.
These collaborative activities are designed to support the integration
of an international, intercultural, or global dimension and world
languages into teacher education and/or to promote the preparation and
credentialing of more foreign language teachers in less commonly taught
languages (LCTLs) for which there is a demand for additional teachers
to meet existing and expected future kindergarten through grade 12
language program needs.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
[[Page 31031]]
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final priorities only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you
can limit your search to documents published by the Department.
Dated: May 27, 2014.
Lynn B. Mahaffie,
Senior Director, Policy Coordination, Development, and Accreditation
Service, delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of
the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014-12583 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P