[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34428-34432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14047]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2013-OESE-0159; CFDA Number: 84.215G]
Final Priorities, Requirement, and Definitions; Innovative
Approaches to Literacy (IAL) Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education (Department).
ACTION: Final priorities, requirement, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces priorities, a requirement, and definitions under the IAL
program. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of the priorities,
requirement, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014
and later years. We take this action to ensure IAL projects are
supported, at a minimum, by evidence of strong theory, and to focus
Federal financial assistance on projects that serve rural local
educational agencies (LEAs).
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirement, and definitions
are effective July 17, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Moore Miller, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E235, Washington, DC 20202-
6200. Telephone: (202) 453-5621 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 (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the IAL program is to support
high-quality projects designed to develop and improve literacy skills
for children and students from birth through 12th grade within the
attendance boundaries of high-need LEAs and schools.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7243-7243b.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirement, and
definitions for this program in the Federal Register on February 28,
2014 (79 FR 11363). That notice contained background information and
our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirement, and
definitions.
There are differences between the proposed priorities, requirement,
and definitions and these final priorities, requirement, and
definitions 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, requirement, and definitions, nine parties
submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirement, and
definitions.
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirement, and definitions since
publication of the notice of proposed priorities, requirement, and
definitions follows.
Priorities
Comment: One commenter recommended that we amend proposed priority
1 to require, as a minimum level of evidence, that projects be
supported by evidence of promise rather than strong theory. The
commenter explained that the strong theory level of evidence proposed
in priority 1 appears to set a lower standard of evidence than was used
in the previous competition, which required applicants to cite at least
one study in support of the proposed project that meets the definition
of ``scientifically valid research.'' The commenter also recommended
that the Department look for stronger standards of evidence for all
applicants.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the Department should
[[Page 34429]]
encourage the use of strong standards of evidence in general. Because
we found the term imprecise, we do not refer to ``scientifically based
research'' in the priority. While an applicant to this program would
now only need to provide evidence of strong theory in support of its
proposed project, we think that this approach prepares the applicant to
thoughtfully and successfully implement its project. Setting the
minimum requirement of evidence at the strong theory level also allows
for the most innovative project proposals because applicants are not
restricted by a higher standard of evidence that would require some
degree of replication of a previously executed approach.
Through selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, the Department can
encourage the applicant to design a project evaluation that may help
build on the level of evidence available for future projects. For
example, if a project that uses strong theory is successful, the
evaluation report that a grantee will prepare, as outlined in the
selection criteria, could serve as sufficient evidence of promise for
applicants to cite in support of future proposals. We take this
approach in order to empower applicants to propose innovative ideas
that, if successful, will broaden the base of available evidence in the
field.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that we identify each proposed
priority as absolute, competitive, or invitational.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's interest in learning the
type of priorities that will be assigned in upcoming competitions. It
is our practice, however, to specify the priority types for each
competition in the notice inviting applications, not in a notice of
proposed priorities or a notice of final priorities.
Changes: None.
Eligibility
Comment: One commenter recommended including as an eligible entity
a regional education service agency (RESA), as defined by the National
Center for Education Statistics. The commenter noted that in many
locations, these agencies act as intermediary agents between education
departments and high-need rural LEAs that may otherwise lack capacity
to apply for Federal grants.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation to include
RESAs and other intermediary agencies as eligible applicants for this
program; however, such entities generally already meet the definition
of LEA included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
as amended (ESEA). Section 9101(26)(A) of the ESEA defines an ``LEA''
as an entity that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency
for its public elementary schools or secondary schools, and section
9101(26)(D) of the ESEA specifically includes educational service
agencies and consortia of those agencies under the term ``LEA.''
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended expanding the eligibility
requirement to include high-need populations that are not served by
high-need LEAs. One noted that some preschool sites served by national
not-for-profit organizations (NNPs) may not fall within the attendance
boundaries of a high-need LEA, yet may still be serving high-need
children. The other commenter recommended including low-performing and
unaccredited districts as eligible entities, and also expanding the
target population to include students of families with incomes below
the poverty line, but who attend schools in LEAs that do not meet the
threshold of 25 percent of students from families with incomes below
the poverty line.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations to
consider expanding eligibility and the target population served.
However, the Department must focus its limited resources on the areas
of highest need. The eligibility requirement we have established is
designed to ensure that IAL funds will reach those communities most in
need.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we provide additional
guidance regarding acceptable Census Bureau data sets for determining
high-need LEAs, noting that the Census Bureau's Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data set does not include children from birth
through age four in its school district poverty estimates. The
commenter also noted that the Census Bureau's American Community Survey
(ACS) data set includes family poverty information for students birth
through age four.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation for
clarification concerning the acceptable Census Bureau data set for
determining target population eligibility. Although we recognize that
the SAIPE for school districts lacks specific information for children
under age five, at this time SAIPE are the most satisfactory data
available from the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of this program.
While we agree that poverty data for birth through age four would
be useful for determining eligibility for this program, the Census
Bureau's model-based SAIPE data provide single-year estimates for
students aged 5-17 that are more reflective of current conditions than
are the multi-year survey estimates provided by ACS data. That is,
SAIPE methodology combines ACS estimates with other data sources to
provide more timely, precise, and stable estimates than the five-year
ACS estimates alone. Significantly, SAIPE data incorporate ``grade
relevance,'' whereas ACS estimates do not. For areas with small
populations, SAIPE data contain less uncertainty and have lower error
variance than ACS estimates. SAIPE data therefore provide more accurate
representations of student poverty information than ACS data.
A list of high-need LEAs, by State, that are eligible for IAL
funding in FY 2014 will be available at the program Web site (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovapproaches-literacy/index.html) when this
notice and the notice inviting applications are published.
Although we do not support using a different source of data for
determining eligibility under this program, we do believe a
modification to the definition of ``high-need LEA'' is appropriate. In
order to ensure the definition of ``high-need LEA'' is consistent with
the SAIPE data used to determine eligibility, we believe that we should
change the reference from ``geographic area'' to ``school attendance
area'' and adjust the age range from 0-17 to 5-17.
Also, we note that SAIPE are data used under section 1124(c)(3) of
Title I of the ESEA for the purpose of making allocations and that not
all LEAs are listed on the Census Bureau's lists. Therefore, we also
clarify that States determine eligibility status for LEAs that are not
listed with SAIPE data (e.g., charter school LEAs, State-administered
schools, and regional service agencies), and we provide information
about how States may verify the elegibility of such LEAs.
Changes: We have revised the definition of a ``high-need LEA.''
Under the revised definition, a ``high-need LEA'' is one in which at
least 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the ``school attendance
area'' of the LEA (rather than ``geographic area'') are from families
with incomes below the poverty line based on the U.S. Census Bureau's
Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for school districts for the
most recent income year (Census list). In addition, we added language
to the definition of a ``high-need LEA''
[[Page 34430]]
addressing how to determine if an LEA that is not on the Census list,
such as a charter school LEA, is a ``high-need LEA.'' Such an LEA is
considered a ``high-need LEA'' if the State educational agency (SEA)
determines, consistent with the manner in which the SEA determines an
LEA's eligibility for Title I allocations, that 25 percent of the
students aged 5-17 in the LEA are from families with incomes below the
poverty line.
Also, based on the revised definition of ``high-need LEA,'' we have
made a corresponding technical change to Proposed Priority 1 to delete
the phrase ``within attendance boundaries'' because the revised
definition of ``high-need LEA'' now contemplates LEAs (such as charter
school LEAs) that may draw students from beyond attendance boundaries.
Reporting
Comment: One commenter recommended broadening the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) measures to include
reporting on children birth through 12th grade, noting that the current
measures exclude reporting for children younger than age four, students
who are in kindergarten, and students in grades four and five.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation to broaden
GPRA reporting measures for this program. However, we intend the GPRA
measures for this program to provide an overview of program performance
rather than to assess performance at the level of each age or grade-
level served. Given the variety of projects possible under this
program, we believe that applicants are best equipped to develop
detailed performance measures that address the goals and objectives
unique to individual projects. We note that although GPRA reporting is
not required for projects to which GPRA reporting measures do not
apply, the Department will be able to collect data on progress for
children younger than age four, students in kindergarten, and students
in grades four and five from project-specific performance measures
developed as part of the grantees' local evaluation design.
Changes: None.
General
Comment: One commenter recommended that the onus to coordinate with
school libraries should be placed on LEAs and NNPs, rather than
requiring school libraries to coordinate with LEAs and NNPs. The
commenter indicated that this change would ensure better consistency
with the guiding language from S. Rep. 113-17 and the Federal
grantmaking process.
Discussion: We agree that placing the onus on LEAs and NNPs, rather
than on school libraries, to coordinate resources in developing IAL
proposals will ensure better consistency with the cited report language
and the Federal grantmaking process.
Changes: We have revised the eligibility requirement by adding
language to indicate that LEAs and NNPs must coordinate with school
libraries in developing project proposals.
Comment: One commenter recommended that current IAL grantees who
apply for IAL funds in future competitions should be permitted to
continue serving the same populations.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation. However,
proposing to serve the same populations that were served in a previous
award is already allowable and does not disqualify an applicant from
receiving funds in a new award, provided the applicant meets the
eligibility requirements of the program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that funding be directed toward
initiatives that include cross-sector literacy and parental engagement
programs, as well as those operating outside of traditional education
settings, including within the healthcare infrastructure.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation that we
direct funding toward cross-sector and non-traditional settings;
however, the types of projects the commenter described are already
possible under this program because there are no limitations on the
locations at which services can be provided or the partners a grantee
may choose. Additionally, we do not want to specify in this manner the
types of projects that an applicant may propose, as we wish to maximize
flexibility for applicants seeking to develop innovative project
proposals.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
Final Priority 1--High-Quality Plan for Innovative Approaches to
Literacy That Include Book Distribution, Childhood Literacy Activities,
or Both, and That Is Supported, at a Minimum, by Evidence of Strong
Theory (as Defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c))
To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan that is
supported by evidence of strong theory, including a rationale for the
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice and a corresponding
logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
The applicant must submit a plan with the following information:
(a) A description of the proposed book distribution, childhood
literacy activities, or both, that are designed to improve the literacy
skills of children and students by one or more of the following--
(1) Promoting early literacy and preparing young children to read;
(2) developing and improving students' reading ability;
(3) motivating older children to read; and
(4) teaching children and students to read.
(b) the age or grade spans of children and students from birth
through 12th grade to be served.
(c) a detailed description of the key goals, the activities to be
undertaken, the rationale for those activities, the timeline, the
parties responsible for implementing the activities, and the
credibility of the plan (as judged, in part, by the information
submitted as evidence of strong theory); and
(d)(i) a description of how the proposed project is supported by
strong theory; and
(ii) the corresponding logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
Final Priority 2--Serving Rural LEAs
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project designed
to provide high-quality literacy programming, or distribute books, or
both, to students served by a rural LEA (as defined in this notice).
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
[[Page 34431]]
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirement
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following requirement for this program. We may apply
this requirement in any year in which this program is in effect.
Eligibility: To be considered for an award under this competition,
an applicant must:
(a) Be one of the following:
(1) A high-need LEA (as defined in this notice);
(2) An NNP (as defined in this notice) that serves children and
students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need
LEAs;
(3) A consortium of NNPs that serves children and students within
the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs;
(4) A consortium of high-need LEAs; or
(5) A consortium of one or more high-need LEAs and one or more NNPs
that serve children and students within the attendance boundaries of
one or more high-need LEAs.
(b) Coordinate with school libraries in developing project
proposals.
Final Definitions
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following definitions for this program. We may apply
one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is
in effect:
College- and career-ready standards means content standards for
kindergarten through 12th grade that build towards college and career
readiness by the time of high school graduation. A State's college- and
career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that are common to
a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are approved by a
State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify
that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work
at the postsecondary level.
Comprehensive statewide literacy plan means a plan (which may be a
component or modification of the plan submitted under the Striving
Readers Comprehensive Literacy formula grant program, CFDA 84.371B)
that addresses the literacy and language needs of children from birth
through 12th grade, including English learners and students with
disabilities; aligns literacy policies, resources, and practices;
contains clear instructional goals; and sets high expectations for all
students and student subgroups.
High-need local educational agency (High-need LEA) means--
(i) Except for LEAs referenced in paragraph (ii), an LEA in which
at least 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the school attendance
area of the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line,
based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates for school districts for the most recent income year
(Census list).
(ii) For an LEA that is not included on the Census list, such as a
charter school LEA, an LEA for which the State educational agency (SEA)
determines, consistent with the manner described under section 1124(c)
of the ESEA in which the SEA determines an LEA's eligibility for Title
I allocations, that 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the LEA are
from families with incomes below the poverty line.
National not-for-profit (NNP) organization means an agency,
organization, or institution owned and operated by one or more
corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and
cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity. In
addition, it means, for the purposes of this program, an organization
of national scope that is supported by staff or affiliates at the State
and local levels, who may include volunteers, and that has a
demonstrated history of effectively developing and implementing
literacy activities.
Note: A local affiliate of an NNP does not meet the definition
of NNP. Only a national agency, organization, or institution is
eligible to apply as an NNP.
Rural local educational agency (Rural LEA) means an LEA that is
eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program (SRSA) or the
Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI,
Part B of the ESEA at the time of application.
Universal design for learning (UDL) means a scientifically valid
framework for guiding educational practice that (i) provides
flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students
respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students
are engaged; and (ii) reduces barriers in instruction, provides
appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains
high achievement expectations for all students, including students with
disabilities and students who are English learners.
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, requirement,
and definitions, 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
[[Page 34432]]
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, requirement, and definitions
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: June 11, 2014.
Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014-14047 Filed 6-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P