[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27036-27049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11333]
[[Page 27035]]
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 90
May 11, 2015
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Chapter IV
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criterion--
First in the World Program; Applications for New Awards; Final Rule and
Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 27036]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket No. ED-2015-OPE-0001; CFDA Numbers: 84.116F and 84.116X]
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criterion--First in the World Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and
definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education announces
priorities, requirements, a selection criterion, and definitions under
the First in the World (FITW) program. The Assistant Secretary may use
these priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and definitions
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years.
These priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and
definitions will enable the Department to focus the FITW program on
identified barriers to student success in postsecondary education and
advance the program's purpose to build evidence for what works in
postsecondary education through development, evaluation, and
dissemination of innovative strategies to support students who are at
risk of failure in persisting in and completing their postsecondary
programs of study.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and
definitions are effective June 10, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Frankfort, U.S. Department of
Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6166, Washington, DC 20006.
Telephone: (202) 502-7513 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: Earning a postsecondary degree or credential is
a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy and the clearest
pathway to the middle class. The average earnings of college graduates
are almost twice as high as those of workers with only a high school
diploma and, over this decade, employment in jobs requiring education
beyond a high school diploma will grow more rapidly than employment in
jobs that do not.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carnevale, A., Smith, N., Strohl, J., Help Wanted:
Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018.
Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, even though college enrollment has increased by 50 percent
since 1990, and despite the importance of a postsecondary education to
financial security for American families, only 40 percent of Americans
hold a postsecondary degree.\2\ While the vast majority of high school
graduates from the wealthiest American families continue on to higher
education, only half of high school graduates from the poorest families
attend college.\3\ About 60 percent of students at four-year
institutions earn a bachelor's degree within six years.\4\ For low-
income students, the prospects are even worse, as only 40 percent reach
completion.\5\ Almost 37 million Americans report ``some college, no
degree'' as their highest level of education.\6\ Due to these outcomes,
the United States has been outpaced internationally in higher
education. In 1990, the United States ranked third in the world in
degree attainment among 25-34 year olds \7\ (and ranked first in terms
of university education \8\); in 2012, the United States ranked
12th.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Census Bureau. ``Educational Attainment of the
Population 18 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: 2014'' Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2014/tables.html.
\3\ National Center for Education Statistics. ``Percentage of
recent high school completers enrolled in 2-year and 4-year
colleges, by income level: 1975 through 2012.'' Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_302.30.asp.
\4\ National Center for Education Statistics. ``Percentage
distribution of first-time postsecondary students starting at 2- and
4-year institutions during the 2003-04 academic year, by highest
degree attained, enrollment status, and selected characteristics:
Spring 2009.'' Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_326.40.asp.
\5\ Id.
\6\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey.
\7\ Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development,
Education at a Glance 2004 (Table A3.4b, showing data for 1991).
\8\ Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development,
Education at a Glance 1993, Table S5.
\9\ Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development,
Education at a Glance 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing these factors, President Obama set a goal for the
country that America will once again have the highest proportion of
college graduates in the world. To support this national effort, the
Administration has outlined a comprehensive agenda that includes
expanding opportunity and increasing quality at all levels of
education, from early learning through higher education. The FITW
program is a key part of this agenda.
Unlike in previous generations, adult learners, working students,
part-time students, students from low-income backgrounds, students of
color, and first-generation students now make up the majority of
students in college.\10\ Ensuring that these students persist in and
complete their postsecondary education is essential to meeting our
Nation's educational challenges. However, the traditional methods and
practices of the country's higher education system have typically not
been focused on ensuring successful outcomes for these students, and
too little is known about what strategies are most effective for
addressing key barriers that prevent these students from persisting and
completing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Department of Education. 2010. Profile of
Undergraduate Students: 2007-08. National Center for Education
Statistics: 2010-205. Washington DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key element of the FITW program is its multi-tier structure that
links the amount of funding that an applicant may receive to the
quality of evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project and
the scope of its potential impact. In this program, applicants
proposing practices supported by limited evidence can receive smaller
grants (Development grants) that support the development and initial
evaluation of innovative but untested strategies. Applicants proposing
practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations can receive
larger grants (Validation and Scale-up grants), in amounts commensurate
to the level of supporting evidence and intended scope, for
implementation at greater scale to test whether initially successful
strategies remain effective when adopted in varied locations and with
large and diverse groups of students. This structure provides
incentives for applicants to build evidence of the effectiveness of
their proposed projects and to address the barriers to serving large
numbers of students within institutions and across institutions,
systems, States, regions, or the Nation.
All FITW grantees are required to use part of their budgets to
conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this notice) of their
projects. This ensures that projects funded under the FITW program
contribute significantly to increasing the amount of rigorous research
available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work,
for which types of students, and in what contexts.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d.
We published the notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
selection criterion, and definitions (NPP) for this program in the
Federal Register on February 23, 2015 (80 FR 9414). That
[[Page 27037]]
notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing
the particular priorities, requirements, selection criterion, and
definitions.
There are some differences between the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criterion and these final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion. We
discuss significant changes from the NPP in the Analysis of Comments
and Changes. We do not discuss minor technical or editorial changes.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 38
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
selection criterion, and definitions. We group major issues according
to subject.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, selection criterion,
and definitions since publication of the NPP follows.
Priorities
Priorities--General
Comment: Two commenters suggested additional priorities. One
commenter recommended that the Department add a priority focused on
improving the transition between secondary and postsecondary education.
The commenter suggested that this priority could include elements of
other priorities, such as developing alternatives to single measure
placement strategies mentioned under Priority 1 (Improving Success in
Developmental Education) and aligning assessments across secondary and
postsecondary institutions mentioned under Priority 4 (Developing and
Using Assessments of Learning). The proposed priority would also
include setting clear expectations about college for high school
seniors and providing data on first-year college students' performance
to their high schools.
Another commenter acknowledged that developmental education is a
barrier for many students, but added that students encounter challenges
even after they have progressed to credit-bearing coursework. The
commenter recommended adding a priority to address removing barriers to
credit accumulation and progression. As proposed by the commenter, this
priority would focus on institutional policies and programs that could
be improved to promote completion and could include subparts on
redesigning gateway courses, particularly in mathematics, and academic
mapping.
Discussion: We agree with the importance of the issues and topics
mentioned by the commenters, and believe that the existing priorities
address these issues. Therefore, we decline to add additional
priorities.
As noted in the NPP, in any FITW competition, we may include
priorities from the Department's notice of final supplemental
priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs, published
in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425)
(Supplemental Priorities). The Supplemental Priorities include
priorities on increasing postsecondary success, including academic
preparation for and awareness of postsecondary education, and using
assessment data to inform classroom practices. Therefore, we do not
believe that it is necessary for the Department to develop new
priorities to address these areas for the FITW program. In addition,
the priorities we establish here would not preclude an eligible
applicant from proposing projects that promote cross-sector
collaboration, such as between secondary and postsecondary
institutions, provided that the proposed project otherwise meets the
requirements in the relevant priority. Further, because promoting
student success aligns with many of the other priorities, we do not
think it is necessary to add a priority to address this topic.
We also do not consider it necessary to create a priority that
focuses on barriers to credit accumulation because many of the final
priorities encourage applicants to propose new models for promoting
degree progression. For example, we include a subpart under Priority 5
(Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer) that focuses on
credentialing pathways.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that applicants should be
permitted to apply under more than one priority. One stated that an
integrated approach to reform is needed to achieve substantial
improvements in student outcomes and recommended that applicants be
permitted to choose the priorities, or combination of priorities, which
they wish to address. Another commenter argued that permitting
applicants to address more than one priority would allow applicants to
propose more comprehensive solutions to the challenges that inhibit
student success.
Discussion: We recognize that the priorities address a complex
range of problems in postsecondary education that may necessitate
complex and comprehensive solutions. However, the FITW program is
designed to generate evidence regarding which interventions most
effectively address these problems. In order to demonstrate
effectiveness, a project must be evaluable, which may become more
difficult as the complexity of the approach increases. Thus, we
designed the program to focus on one identified challenge by requiring
applicants to address only one of the priorities. Nonetheless, the
priorities do not prescribe the intervention or practice that an
applicant may propose. Accordingly, although an applicant may apply
under only one priority and the application will be evaluated based on
how well the applicant addresses that priority, an applicant may
propose integrated solutions to the challenges identified in one or
more of the priorities. We also note that the Department may choose to
apply one or more absolute, competitive preference, or invitational
priorities in any future competition in order to generate evidence of
the effectiveness of innovative strategies.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that priority be given to
projects focused on students who have already been served by college
readiness programs, such as Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), so as to leverage the investment that
has already been made in these students and increase the likelihood of
success.
Discussion: The Department is unable to give preference to grantees
in other Federal programs, such as GEAR UP, and be consistent with the
priorities which we have established. Nonetheless, applicants may be
able to strengthen their proposals based on the other types of support
they are providing through other resources to a particular student
population before, during, or after the proposed FITW intervention.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter argued that the FITW program is too narrowly
focused on completion, and that the Department should be concerned
about affordability and financial aid. The commenter suggested that the
FITW program specify outcomes such as indebtedness after college and
labor market outcomes, including salary.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion, but believe
the proposed priorities address these concerns. For example, Priority 6
(Increasing the Effectiveness of Financial Aid) could include loan
counseling projects. Priorities 4 (Developing and Using Assessments of
Learning) and 5 (Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer)
can be used to align curricula and credentials
[[Page 27038]]
to career pathways. Priorities 1 (Improving Success in Developmental
Education), 2 (Improving Teaching and Learning), 3 (Improving Student
Support Services), and 5 all address core issues affecting the cost of
higher education. The primary aim of the FITW program is to support
projects that will improve the rate of degree and credential
completion, but student indebtedness and labor market outcomes may also
be addressed.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged the solicitation of proposals
aimed at building an institutional culture that supports scaled
reforms, strategic partnerships, deep and broad engagement with
faculty, staff, and other stakeholders, and constant attention to
closing achievement gaps.
Discussion: We believe the priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criterion that we establish here can be used to address
these important goals. For instance, Priority 2 (Improving Teaching and
Learning), subpart (iii) speaks specifically to institutional level
strategies, and Priority 4 (Developing and Using Assessments of
Learning), subpart (ii) speaks to professional development or training
of faculty and staff. In addition, the tiers of FITW grants encourage
institutional partnerships and provide a continuum for funding that
span from initial, localized development to implementation on a
national scale. In addition, Priority 9 (Systems and Consortia Focused
on Large-Scale Impact) and the selection criterion (Collaboration)
encourage applicants to focus on strategic partnerships.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department help make
college affordable and accessible for students and their families by
decreasing the price of textbooks and increasing financial aid.
Discussion: We think it is important to specify here that FITW
grantees may not disburse project funds to students as financial aid.
We agree with the commenter that affordability is an important issue
that merits attention. However, we think that this topic is addressed
in the priorities announced in this document and in the Supplemental
Priorities. In FITW Priority 6 (Increasing the Effectiveness of
Financial Aid), we encourage projects that improve the effectiveness of
existing financial aid funds through counseling, need-based aid, or
other strategies. Supplemental Priority 5 (Increasing Postsecondary
Access, Affordability, and Completion) includes a subpart for projects
that reduce the net cost (e.g., total cost minus financial aid) of
college. Open educational resources could additionally be a component
of many proposed interventions.
Changes: None.
Priority 1--Improving Success in Developmental Education
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department revise
this priority to include specific strategies that would support
students in developmental education. One commenter recommended that the
Department prioritize projects that blend academic with non-academic
support systems to track low-income learners in developmental
education. Another commenter suggested that younger students would
benefit from having multiple teachers. A third commenter offered
support for the priority overall and recommended that it include
partnerships between adult education programs and institutions of
higher education that can address learners' basic skills and English
language needs. Finally, one commenter recommended that three
particular strategies be given preference: (1) Identifying and treating
academic needs prior to postsecondary enrollment; (2) accelerating
students' progress by placing them into credit-bearing courses with
proper support; and (3) integrating academic and other support for
students in developmental education.
Discussion: An applicant may propose any of these strategies to
improve student success in developmental education. We expect
applicants to consider the needs of their institution and available
research from the field when designing an application to address this
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for Priority 1, but
suggested that the Department allow grantees flexibility in complying
with other regulations if this priority is selected for use in a
competition. The commenter raised a concern that grantees could face
penalties or barriers to implementing novel ideas and that implementing
a project designed to address the priority would be unduly burdensome
for support staff.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concerns, but do not
believe that the priority creates barriers to implementation of
interventions designed to address the challenges identified in the
priority. We think it is important to clarify that these priorities
correspond to what the Department believes are the greatest challenges
in postsecondary education and the areas most in need of innovative
ideas to address barriers to postsecondary student success. We also
believe that clear communication, strong partnerships, and project
leadership are important in order to successfully implement an
intervention. While the Department encourages grantees to consider and
address these issues, we do not include them specifically in the
priorities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the heavy workload of
developmental courses may direct time and energy away from students'
other credit-bearing courses, particularly for high-need students. The
commenter recommended that the Department calculate for each
application the time or opportunity cost to students in developmental
courses.
Discussion: We agree that developmental coursework may pose
barriers to student success in degree credit-bearing courses. We
include a subpart under this priority for projects that redesign
developmental courses together with occupational or college-content
coursework.
In addition, we note that Requirement 5 (Independent Evaluation)
requires all grantees of the FITW program to use part of their budgets
to conduct an independent evaluation of their projects. This ensures
that projects contribute significantly to improving the information
available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work,
for which types of students, and in what contexts. The results of these
evaluations will be available to the public. Additionally, two of the
performance measures established for the FITW program are cost per
participant and cost per successful outcome, so the Department will
collect data from grantees on these measures.
Finally, since the ultimate goal is student progress into credit-
bearing courses, many pathways could be proposed.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the mention of
contextualized learning in a subpart under this priority. However, the
commenter noted that variations in accreditation and reporting
standards across institutions of higher education may inhibit their
ability to offer more courses built around contextualized learning.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support and recognize
that institutions must attend to a variety of accountability
requirements and standards. The subpart mentions contextualized
developmental
[[Page 27039]]
education as one example of a strategy to address this priority.
Changes: None.
Priority 2--Improving Teaching and Learning
Comment: One commenter expressed support for Priority 2. Another
commenter echoed this support and suggested that the priority
specifically emphasize team teaching and faculty professional
development. This commenter pointed out that team teaching has been
well researched in elementary and secondary schools and offered
recommendations for particular evidence-based strategies to test in
postsecondary education.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 2.
We believe that Priority 2 allows considerable flexibility for
applicants to propose innovative strategies to improve teaching and
learning. We encourage applicants to use strategies that are based on
the demonstrated needs of their institution and on available research
in the field.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that Priority 2 include a focus on
system-level or consortia-level projects that track learning among
transfer students. The commenter argued that this is particularly
important for non-traditional learners who are more mobile than
traditional learners. According to the commenter, learning could be
measured by proficiency development or value-added measures of learning
associated with a general education curriculum.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation and agree
that collaboration among institutions and other partners can lead to
increased student success. We believe these approaches could be
addressed in Priorities 4 (Developing and Using Assessments of
Learning), 5 (Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer), and
9 (Systems and Consortia Focused on Large-Scale Impact).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise Priority 2 to
include references to hybrid and flipped teaching models as well as
peer-supported learning models, such as supplemental learning and peer
tutoring. The commenter suggested that these changes could be added to
subpart (b)(ii) or as a new subpart.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We note
that subpart (b)(ii) of Priority 2 includes a focus on online or
blended programs. We believe that Priority 2 allows considerable
flexibility for applicants to propose innovative strategies to improve
teaching and learning.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that under-resourced
institutions may not have the means to implement innovative strategies.
The commenter particularly highlighted the urgency of improving
resources for existing programs for high-need students.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for raising this concern. An
overall focus of FITW is to improve the resources available to, and the
success of, high-need students. The Validation and Scale-up tiers of
the competition have the specific goal of increasing the scale and
quality of evidence that supports practices that have been demonstrated
to work for these students. We also appreciate the commenter's concern
regarding the ability of under-resourced institutions to implement
innovative strategies. We note that a key feature of the program is an
emphasis on encouraging cross-institutional collaborations in order to
build on a variety of institutional resources and strengths.
Changes: None.
Priority 3--Improving Student Support Services
Comment: Several commenters expressed strong support for Priority 3
and noted the urgency of expanding the range and number of students
served by student support services. One commenter noted that the
largest barrier to student success is adjusting to the difference
between high school and college. Another commenter suggested that the
evidence for student support services is so robust that Priority 3
should be made an absolute priority in future competitions. A third
commenter suggested that subpart (b)(iii) should be made an absolute
priority.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support of Priority
3. We agree that the transition to postsecondary education, whether
students enter directly from high school or from the workforce, can be
challenging. The goal of this priority is to develop, test, and bring
to scale supports to help students through this transitional period as
well as during other points along their postsecondary pathways.
In response to the comments suggesting that this priority be used
as an absolute priority, we note that the Department has the discretion
to use any of these priorities in future FITW competitions. The
Department may choose which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are
appropriate for a particular competition. If the Department chooses to
use these priorities, it also has discretion to decide how they should
be designated (i.e., absolute or competitive preference).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department give priority
to projects that propose new communication tools, including telephone
consulting, well-staffed satellite locations, and extended in-person
service hours. Another commenter recommended that technology used to
automatically provide supports or services should also include
predictive analytics and eligibility screening for multiple public
benefits. A third commenter echoed the recommendation for the use of
predictive analytics.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions for
strategies to improve outreach about support services. We decline to
make the proposed changes because we believe these suggestions are
adequately addressed in Priority 3. Furthermore, we include predictive
analytics as a possible strategy under subpart (b)(ii) of Priority 3.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department emphasize
projects that connect students to a range of financial supports. One
commenter encouraged the Department to include projects that integrate
education and training, income and work supports, and financial
services and asset building for low-income students. Another commenter
suggested that resources and services should also include connecting
students to financial counseling.
Discussion: We agree that financial supports are an important type
of student support service. We decline to include the proposed
strategies in Priority 3, however, because we believe that the goal of
connecting students to financial resources is adequately addressed in
the priorities. Subpart (b)(iii) of Priority 3 mentions providing
assistance in accessing government benefits and other resources. In
addition, subpart (b)(i) of Priority 6 (Increasing the Effectiveness of
Financial Aid) focuses on financial literacy counseling and resources.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that Priority 3 recognize that
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students face unique
challenges. The commenter noted that LGBT students need specifically
tailored supports both before and during their postsecondary education.
The commenter strongly
[[Page 27040]]
urged the Department to prioritize proposals that include culturally
competent services for LGBT students.
Discussion: As mentioned in the NPP, Priority 3 is designed to
support investments in strategies that are most likely to increase
access to effective student services, particularly for individuals from
groups that have been historically under-served in postsecondary
education. These individuals may include, but are not limited to, adult
learners, students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, and
LGBT students. We further note that recipients of Department funding
must comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975. For additional information and assistance
on civil rights laws that may impose additional requirements on
recipients and subrecipients of Federal financial assistance, please
consult the ``Notice on Civil Rights Obligations Applicable to the
Distribution of Funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009,'' which is available at www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/notices/civil-rights.html.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to include a focus
on improving outcomes for high-achieving, low-income students as a
subpart of Priority 3 or as a new priority. The commenter noted that
low-income students are less likely to attend selective postsecondary
institutions and that the majority of high-achieving, low-income
students do not apply to any selective institutions.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and concur
that strategies to support low-income students merit attention. We note
that Requirement 1 (Innovations that Improve Outcomes for High-Need
Students) focuses on students from low-income backgrounds, among other
high-need student populations. Because this requirement would apply to
all grantees, regardless of the priority to which they responded in
their applications, we do not believe it is necessary to make the
proposed change.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters offered suggestions for specific strategies
to improve student advising services. One commenter requested that we
revise subpart (b)(ii) to include holistic advising models that
incorporate multiple factors for determining college readiness and
academic placements. The commenter also suggested that we revise
subpart (b)(ii) or (b)(iii) to include career advising to assist
students in choosing a major or program of study.
A second commenter also supported the addition of holistic advising
models in Priority 3. This commenter recommended that the Department
add a focus on collaboration with employers and other workforce
partners, including an explicit mention of work-based learning
opportunities. The commenter suggested that Priority 3 include the
following strategies: Career counseling during initial advising
sessions, student supports focused on non-cognitive factors and
students' external responsibilities, the use of credential pathways or
maps, peer-to-peer supports, cohort-based approaches, and case
management approaches.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their suggestions. There is
a wide range of possible strategies to improve student support
services. The aim of Priority 3 is to support projects that are subject
to rigorous tests to determine which of these strategies effectively
improve student outcomes, particularly outcomes related to access,
persistence, and completion. We decline to make the proposed revisions
because we do not believe it is appropriate for the Department to
prescribe which strategies applicants should use to achieve these
goals.
Changes: None.
Priority 4--Developing and Using Assessments of Learning
Comment: Two commenters expressed strong support for Priority 4.
One commenter suggested that this priority could be made more inclusive
by adding specific strategies to serve students with disabilities and
students who are English learners. Another commenter emphasized the
importance of using educational games for formative assessments. A
third commenter recommended that we add assessments that measure co-
curricular learning, such as civic engagement and critical thinking
skills, under subpart (b).
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 4.
We agree that there are many innovative strategies to assess a variety
of student learning outcomes and that strategies under this and all of
the priorities should be inclusive of all students. We note that
students who are English learners are explicitly included in the
illustrative list of examples included in the definition of ``high-need
student.'' Students with disabilities could also be considered high-
need, assuming the students are at risk of educational failure or
otherwise in need of special assistance or support. We also note that
all recipients of Department funds must comply with the
nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested a definition of ``open-source
assessments.''
Discussion: Although the Department does not define open-source
assessments, in the FITW program we may invite applicants to develop
assessments of learning that are free and available for others to use
and refine. We decline to further define the types of assessments that
applicants may propose.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
subpart (b)(ii) to include additional stakeholders who may be
responsible for student assessments and to elaborate on different
assessment types. Specifically, the commenter suggested that the
priority include student services personnel and mention diagnostic,
formative, and summative assessments.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. While faculty
are primarily responsible for assessing student learning in the
classroom, staff may also take part in assessing student learning in
other settings, such as knowledge and competencies gained through prior
work experience. We do not wish to impose limitations on applicants by
specifying the types of allowable assessments, but we have revised the
priority to refer to the roles of staff in assessment activities.
Changes: We have revised Priority 4, subpart (b)(ii) to add a
reference to professional development for staff, as well as faculty.
Priority 5--Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer
Comment: Several commenters expressed strong support for Priority 5
and its subparts. One commenter agreed that alternative credentialing
and badging frameworks are needed. Another commenter noted that there
is mounting support and evidence for credit for prior learning and
opportunities for students to earn credits prior to enrolling in
postsecondary education. Echoing this support for prior learning
credits, a third commenter suggested that we could strengthen this
priority by clarifying that prior learning
[[Page 27041]]
assessments and other similar strategies are included under this
subpart.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support. We agree that
alternative credentialing frameworks and credit for prior learning are
promising strategies to recognize student learning and ensure that
students reach completion. However, we decline to make the suggested
changes because we believe that they are adequately addressed in the
existing subparts of the priority. The Department does not wish to
limit the types of interventions that applicants might propose through
further specification.
Changes: None.
Comment: A commenter requested that the Department include under
subpart (b)(ii) the validation and transfer of credentialing or badging
frameworks.
Discussion: Projects designed to create or refine credentialing or
badging frameworks could be proposed under this priority. We decline to
make the requested change in order to avoid being overly prescriptive
about how to improve pathways to credentialing and transfer.
Changes: None.
Comment: Noting that many students pursue postsecondary education
and training that prepares them for careers, one commenter recommended
that Priority 5 explicitly mention strategies to improve career
pathways. Such strategies could include embedding work-based learning
in credentialing pathways and developing career pathways for high
school students, disconnected youth, and adult learners.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We agree
that career preparation is indeed a motivating factor for many
postsecondary students. The goal of this priority is to develop
innovative strategies to accelerate completion of a wide range of
credentials, including portable, stackable credentials aligned to
career pathways, as well as specific pathways for individuals who have
traditionally been underserved in postsecondary education. We believe
the priority adequately reflects this goal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we expand what we mean by
seamless transfer of credits to include the transfer of postsecondary
credits between all postsecondary institutions within and across
States. The commenter also recommended that this priority emphasize
that credits should be applicable at the receiving institution, and not
simply transferrable. Furthermore, the commenter urged us to include
strategies that track student mobility and performance across
institutions.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions. We decline
to make the proposed changes because several priorities already address
the commenter's recommendations. For example, the transfer of credits
between institutions is mentioned under subpart (b)(i) of Priority 5
and is not restricted to institutions in the same State. In addition,
multi-site strategies are addressed under Priority 9 (Systems and
Consortia Focused on Large-Scale Impact).
We are not certain what the commenter intends by referring to
credits that are applicable rather than simply transferrable. However,
the aim of Priority 5 is to ensure that students accelerate progress
towards a degree or credential. Thus, we assume that strategies to
improve credit transfer would address how credits would be applied
towards this end.
Changes: None.
Priority 6--Increasing the Effectiveness of Financial Aid
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for Priority 6. Two
commenters recommended focusing on this priority in future FITW
competitions. Another commenter noted that there is a sufficient number
of relevant evidence-based strategies to warrant making this an
absolute priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' strong support for
Priority 6. We agree that there is a substantial body of evidence on
the effectiveness of financial aid, and we hope that this evidence will
be useful to potential applicants. However, these priorities are
intended as a menu of options for future FITW competitions. The
Department may choose which, if any, of the priorities or subparts are
appropriate for a particular competition. We note that the Department
may choose to designate any of these priorities as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational in a given FITW competition,
and that these designations may change in future competitions.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to create a competitive
preference priority for historically black colleges and universities
(HBCUs) that would apply to Priority 6 (``Increasing the Effectiveness
of Financial Aid'').
Discussion: We recognize the critical role that minority-serving
institutions (MSIs), including HBCUs, play in helping our country meet
the demand for more postsecondary degrees and credentials. Priority 8
(Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at Minority-Serving
Institutions) addresses issues at those institutions specifically, and
this includes HBCUs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended specific strategies to
increase the effectiveness of financial aid. One commenter suggested
that the Department prioritize projects that use restricted access
financial aid data or flexible need-based aid. A second commenter
suggested one-stop shops for financial aid counseling and resources to
access other public benefits. A third commenter recommended that the
Department focus on projects that expand or restructure institutional
aid programs. Finally, a fourth commenter recommended including
projects that aim to simplify financial aid and test need-plus-merit
aid.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for these suggestions. Because
these projects are permissible under the priority as written, and
because we want to ensure applicants have as much flexibility as
possible in designing their proposed strategies, we decline to make the
proposed changes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that Priority 6 focus on
students with the greatest financial need.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion and concur
that college affordability is a pressing problem for students with
limited financial resources. This priority aims to simplify access to
much needed financial supports, particularly those that will have a
meaningful impact on completion. We do not specify the categories of
students that must be served in this or in any other priority. However,
Requirement 1 (Innovations that Improve Outcomes for High-Need
Students) directs applicants to focus on ``high-need students,''
defined in this document to include students at risk of educational
failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support. The
Department has the discretion to select this and other requirements and
priorities in future FITW competitions. If the Department applies this
requirement in a future FITW competition, grantees would be required to
indicate that they are focused on high-need students in response to all
priorities that they choose to address. We believe that this
requirement addresses the commenter's concerns and goals.
Changes: None.
[[Page 27042]]
Priority 7--Implementing Low Cost-High Impact Strategies To Improve
Student Outcomes
Comment: Two commenters expressed support for Priority 7. The
commenters recommended that the Department require all future grantees
to use low cost-high impact strategies.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for this expression of support
and concur that this is an important consideration. The Department has
the discretion to decide which priorities to use in a given year, as
well as how to designate those priorities (i.e., absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational), and may consider the commenters'
suggestion in the future.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters addressed strategies that use technology in
Priority 7. One commenter recommended adding projects that examine
whether access to technology is a barrier to effectively implementing
low cost-high impact strategies. Another commenter noted that
strategies that use technology are not always low cost, and recommended
adding strategies that do not require technology, such as peer
mentoring.
Discussion: We appreciate these commenters' suggestions. We note
that projects that use technology to minimize cost are just one example
under Priority 7. We believe that applicants are best able to determine
how to meet this priority and that the priority does not limit the way
that applicants may propose to use technology, if they choose to do so.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require
grantees to track both costs and benefits of their projects. This would
allow grantees to calculate the return on investment (ROI) for their
project, which could be included in their evaluation. The commenter
noted that the Leveraging What Works program, proposed in the
Department's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget, would require grantees to
annually report per-pupil expenditures and student outcomes in order to
calculate ROI for selected interventions.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this recommendation. A
primary goal of the FITW program is to develop and replicate best
practices in postsecondary education. As the commenter noted, FITW
grantees are already required to conduct an independent evaluation of
student outcomes, as described in Requirement 5 (Independent
Evaluation) of this notice. We allow grantees and their independent
evaluators to determine what should be included in this evaluation,
provided that it is designed to meet relevant What Works Clearinghouse
(WWC) Evidence Standards if well-implemented, as described in
Requirement 6 (Evaluation Design). We also note that the Department
establishes FITW performance measures, including cost per participant
and cost per successful outcome.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we include subparts under
Priority 7. The commenter noted that this would help applicants
understand the goal of the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation. The goal
of this priority is to solicit projects that make efficient use of
resources. The Department could also choose to use this priority in
combination with other priorities. To ensure that we do not limit or
narrow the types of projects that could be submitted under this
priority, we decline to provide a specific list of tools to meet this
goal. We also note that, in a particular competition, we can use this
priority in combination with other priorities established in this NFP.
Changes: None.
Priority 8--Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at Minority-
Serving Institutions
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for Priority 8. One
commenter noted that the structure of the FITW program, in which awards
can be made as Development, Validation, or Scale-up grants, makes it
important for the Department to fund a diverse range of institutions,
including two-year, four-year, public, and private non-profit
institutions, and MSIs. Another commenter recommended that this
priority be included as a competitive preference priority.
Discussion: We thank these commenters for their support. MSIs play
a critical role in the country's postsecondary education system and in
meeting our goal of again becoming first in the world in postsecondary
attainment. In future competitions, the Department may choose to
designate this priority as an absolute or competitive preference
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department prioritize
projects that define, operationalize, and measure outcomes for high-
need student subpopulations under this priority.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to examine outcomes for
high-need students, which is why the FITW program includes evaluation
requirements (Requirements 5 and 6). The evaluation process helps
grantees focus on which students are served by a particular
intervention, as well as how they are served. We also include a
definition of ``high-need student'' that illustrates specific student
subpopulations that fall in this category. We believe that the
requirement and definition meets the commenter's objectives, and that
no further changes are necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we expand this priority to
include institutions that serve large numbers of low-income students.
The commenter suggested that these institutions could be defined by the
percentage of students who receive Pell grants or other forms of
Federal student financial aid.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to support low-income
students and aim to do so through other aspects of this program.
Students from low-income backgrounds are included in the definition of
``high-need students.'' Requirement 1 (Innovations that Improve
Outcomes for High-Need Students) also addresses the needs of this
group. In contrast to MSIs, which have a distinct mission and tradition
of serving particular student populations, institutions that serve
large numbers of students from low-income backgrounds fall into many
different categories. Indeed, some MSIs might also meet the criteria
the commenter has suggested. Nothing in this priority precludes these
institutions from participating or disadvantages them in the
competition. To make sure that this priority addresses the intended
issues, we decline to further expand it.
Changes: None.
Priority 9--Systems and Consortia Focused on Large-Scale Impact
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department prioritize
projects that track matriculation and transfer patterns within and
between institutions within a postsecondary system or consortium.
Discussion: The aim of this priority is to encourage institutions
and systems to collaborate to address key barriers to completion. While
transfer certainly can be a barrier for some students, we feel that
this issue is addressed under Priority 5 (Facilitating Pathways to
Credentialing and Transfer). Priority 9 does not suggest particular
strategies that systems and consortia should address, but rather a
particular method by which to strengthen any given
[[Page 27043]]
strategy or approach proposed by the applicant.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged us to give additional points to
consortia of institutions that use robust learning communities to share
knowledge and disseminate best practices.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. The purpose
of the FITW program is to develop and disseminate best practices in
postsecondary education. As the commenter noted, learning communities
are a promising method for sharing knowledge with others. However, we
decline to make the commenter's suggested change because we wish to
provide applicants with the flexibility to determine which methods of
developing strong consortia would be most appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: Noting that applicants typically have between 30 and 60
days to submit an application after a notice inviting applications
(NIA) is published, one commenter expressed concern that the open
application period is too short to create consortia-based projects. The
commenter suggested that the Department announce the focus of the
competition in advance of the NIA. Alternatively, the Department could
provide information for several years' competitions at once. This would
allow consortia time to develop applications that meet the necessary
evidence and large-scale impact requirements.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the work that applicants put
into developing high-quality projects for this and other grant
programs. We strive to provide as much time as possible to allow
applicants to prepare their submissions. Indeed, one of our goals in
developing these priorities was to provide greater overall guidance to
potential applicants. Unfortunately, the constraints and timing of the
annual budget and appropriations cycle do not permit us to provide
information about multiple years of a grant program at one time.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed strong support for Priority 9,
noting that once an evidence base is established, large-scale reforms
are most efficiently accomplished through systems. The commenter
requested that we add a focus on State policy. Each grantee would be
required to develop a policy work plan and identify several key levers
needed to build support for and eliminate barriers to system redesign,
scale, and student success.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support and suggestions.
States are critical partners in postsecondary education, and although
policy work is not within the scope of this program, we encourage
grantees to consider ways to collaborate with State and local
stakeholders in their work. Priorities 4 (Developing and Using
Assessments of Learning) and 5 (Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing
and Transfer) both include a focus on systemic approaches and building
partnerships. We believe applicants are best positioned to determine
how to build these relationships, and thus we decline to make the
specific additions requested.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we give preference to
consortia that include MSIs or institutions serving large numbers of
students of color.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. The FITW
program encourages the work of these institutions through Priority 8
(Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at Minority-Serving
Institutions) as well as through the definition of ``high-need
student,'' which includes students of color. The Department does not
believe that it is necessary to establish a priority for a particular
kind of consortium because the Department could choose to combine
Priority 9 with Priority 8 (Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at
Minority-Serving Institutions). We believe such an approach would
adequately address the commenter's concern.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that State agencies of higher
education be included as eligible applicants. According to the
commenter, consistent with the purposes of Priority 9, these agencies
offer access to statewide data, can identify statewide areas of need,
and are able to coordinate partnerships among institutions.
Discussion: State higher education agencies have an important voice
in postsecondary education systems and are eligible to apply for FITW
grants. Eligible applicants for FITW, as described in this document,
include an institution of higher education, combinations of such
institutions, and other public and private nonprofit institutions and
agencies.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for Priority 9 and
recommended that the Department consider how it might be applied to
Validation and Scale-up grants. The commenter pointed out that the NPP
suggests that this priority would only apply to Development grants.
However, the commenter suggested that partners and collaborators could
also help in expanding and adapting evidence-based strategies.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for raising this point. To
clarify, the Department may choose to use any of the priorities
established in this notice in a competition for any type of FITW grant
(Development, Validation, or Scale-up). Although the NPP included a
background section for Priority 9 that mentioned differences between
types of grants, this was not intended to suggest that one type of
grant would be better suited for this priority.
Changes: None.
Requirements
Requirements--General
Comment: One commenter noted that we stated in the NPP that the
Department may use requirements, selection criteria, and definitions
from the Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR). This commenter encouraged us to use EDGAR's evidence
definitions and regulations supporting the use of evidence, data, and
evaluation.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. For FITW, the
Department is permitted to use the evidence definitions and regulations
in EDGAR as well as those established in this document. Thus, the
Department may exercise the flexibility allowed by 34 CFR 75.226 (What
procedures does the Secretary use if the Secretary decides to give
special consideration to applications supported by strong evidence of
effectiveness, moderate evidence of effectiveness, or evidence of
promise?) to give competitive preference or establish a separate
competition for applications supported by evidence of promise, moderate
evidence of effectiveness, or strong evidence of effectiveness. The
Department may also decide to use evidence-related selection criteria
in 34 CFR 75.210. However, any use of those requirements, selection
criteria, and definitions will be described in the notice inviting
applications.
Changes: None.
Requirement 1--Innovations That Improve Outcomes for High-Need Students
Comment: Many commenters expressed strong support for this
requirement. One commenter recommended that grantees be required to
focus on low-income students and students of color. Two commenters
[[Page 27044]]
urged us to emphasize projects that enroll and graduate low-income,
first-generation, and underprepared students. One commenter asked the
Department to include this requirement in all FITW competitions.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support for this
requirement. We concur that high-need students deserve better outcomes,
and the FITW program aims to support the development and dissemination
of tools that improve outcomes for these students in a variety of ways.
The Department will consider whether to include this requirement in
each year's competition. We also note that we allow applicants to
determine which student subpopulations they will serve, and that low-
income students and students of color are included as examples of
student subpopulations in the definition of ``high-need student.'' This
definition also includes an illustrative list of groups that face
unique challenges, such as adult learners, working students, part-time
students, students from low-income backgrounds, students of color,
first-generation students, students with disabilities, and students who
are English learners. We are adding ``students with disabilities'' to
the illustrative list in the definition of ``high-need student'' for
consistency with other ED programs, as discussed under Definitions.
Changes: None.
Comment: Stating that a focus on high-need students is timely, one
commenter urged the Department to consider how these students are
served by two-year institutions. These institutions vary in their size,
location, and capacities, but many perform at the same level as their
peers at four-year institutions.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the key role of two-year
institutions in serving many of our country's high-need students. Two-
year institutions were among the FITW recipients in the FY 2014
competition and we encourage such institutions to apply in future
competitions. Because two-year institutions are eligible to apply for
FITW grants, we do not believe it is necessary to revise this
requirement to address them specifically.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide
clarification on the definition of ``innovation'' in Requirement 1. For
Validation and Scale-up grants, the commenter asked whether projects
that make adjustments to proven programs in order to reduce costs would
meet this requirement. In addition, the commenter asked whether the
planned execution of an intervention constitutes an innovation.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for raising this issue for
clarification. For the purposes of the FITW program, we define
``innovation'' to mean a process, product, strategy, or practice that
improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes
reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach
widespread effective usage. This definition is consistent with the
definition used in the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, which is
FITW's elementary and secondary education counterpart.
Changes: We have added a definition of the term ``innovation'' to
the Definitions section of this notice.
Requirement 2--Eligibility
Comment: One commenter expressed enthusiasm for the inclusion of
public and private non-profit agencies as eligible applicants. Another
commenter asked for clarification of the definition of ``non-profit
agencies.''
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this support. We intend to
use the EDGAR definition of ``nonprofit'' in 34 CFR 77.1: ``Nonprofit,
as applied to an agency, organization, or institution, means that it is
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.'' This definition will be included in any NIA
that includes this requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for State systems of higher education
to be considered eligible applicants. The commenter noted that these
systems have a unique advantage in conducting rigorous evaluations due
to their access to large numbers of students and robust datasets.
Discussion: State higher education agencies have an important voice
in postsecondary education systems and are eligible to apply for FITW
grants. Eligible applicants for FITW include an institution of higher
education, combinations of such institutions, and other public and
private nonprofit institutions and agencies.
Changes: None.
Requirement 3--Types of FITW Grants
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department specify that
Scale-up grants include projects that use predictive analytics.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion, but decline
to make this change. The purpose of this section is to identify types
of grants, rather than define specific projects they could include.
Several of the priorities could incorporate use of predictive
analytics.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters questioned our description of Development
grant projects in the background section of the NPP as ``novel.'' One
commenter asked us to clarify that innovations included in Development
grant projects may not always be novel, but rather best practices that
are brought to scale. The commenter suggested that projects should be
required to innovate significantly from current design. Another
commenter asked for examples of projects that would be considered novel
and yet are supported by empirical evidence.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for these suggestions. As
discussed above, we have added a definition of ``innovation'' in order
to clarify expectations for projects under all grant types. The
rationale for adding this definition is discussed elsewhere in this
document. We believe that this definition clarifies the Department's
expectations for the ways in which projects should differ from current
design and can help applicants determine which types of projects would
be considered novel and are supported by empirical evidence
Changes: We have added a definition of the term ``innovation'' to
the Definitions section of this notice.
Comment: One commenter asked us to clarify whether rigorous
evaluations, such as the use of randomized controlled trials, are the
preferred methodology for conducting independent evaluations of
Development grant projects.
Discussion: Requirements 4 (Evidence and Sample Size Standards) and
5 (Independent Evaluation) address expectations for evaluations of all
types of grants. Further, Requirement 6 (Evaluation Design) is designed
to indicate that the Secretary announces in the NIA which evaluation
standard applies to which grant type.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked us to further clarify the difference
between Validation and Scale-up grants. The commenter asked whether
projects that replicate and adapt proven programs in new locations (for
example, throughout colleges in a State or at several colleges in a
system) would qualify for a Validation or a Scale-up grant.
Discussion: The primary difference between a Validation and a
Scale-up grant lies in the level of evidence
[[Page 27045]]
supporting the proposed project. Validation grants must be supported by
moderate evidence of effectiveness as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c) whereas
Scale-up grants would likely be supported by strong evidence of
effectiveness, as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c). Additionally, Scale-up
grants would apply to projects with a larger number of sites, a greater
variety of contexts, and a greater variety of students than Validation
grants. These differences are explained in the Background section of
the NPP.
Changes: None.
Requirement 4--Evidence and Sample Size Standards
Comment: One commenter asked us to clarify how the term ``multi-
site'' is defined for Scale-up grants. The commenter asked whether a
project that includes multiple colleges within the same system or
multiple campuses within the same institution would meet the multi-site
requirement.
Discussion: In 34 CFR 77.1, we define ``multi-site sample'' as
``more than one site, where site can be defined as an LEA, locality, or
State.'' Subpart (d) of Requirement 4 further clarifies that a multi-
site sample can include multiple institutions, while a scaled multi-
site sample can include sites across a system of institutions, or
across institutions in a State, region, labor market sector, or
nationwide. We will announce in the NIA for any given FITW competition
which requirement will apply to the Scale-up tier.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for further clarification on
overlapping samples as used for Scale-up grants. The commenter asked to
what extent and along what dimensions populations should be required to
overlap with the sample in a supporting study.
Discussion: We refer the commenter to subpart (e) of Requirement 4,
which clarifies that projects must include the core aspects of a
process, product, strategy, or practice from a supporting study as
closely as possible. If the project proposes to adapt an intervention
from a study, the applicant must provide justifications for these
changes. It is the applicant's responsibility to determine whether and
to what extent the population in the supporting study was a core aspect
of its implementation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked the Department to consider expanding
the evidence requirements beyond the WWC Evidence Standards. The
commenter suggested that evidence could be based on rigorous
assessments with strong designs conducted by reputable evaluators.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We note
that the evidence standards included in this program meet the
commenter's objectives. These standards include rigorous assessments,
strong designs, and reputable evaluators. The evidence standards we use
in the FITW program are consistent with EDGAR and are used widely
across the Department's discretionary grant programs. We choose to use
the WWC Evidence Standards so that this program can produce evidence of
the highest possible quality. The WWC Evidence Standards were developed
based on years of interaction with leading experts in program
evaluation in the education field.
Changes: None.
Requirement 5--Evaluation
Comment: One commenter requested that we require grantees to report
disaggregated student outcome data. At a minimum, the commenter
proposed that we require data to be disaggregated by outcomes for low-
income students and students of color. In addition, the commenter
suggested that we require grantees to report outcomes for other high-
need student populations.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We agree
that useable data on outcomes for high-need student subpopulations are
critical to improving programs and services. However, we decline to
make the proposed changes because this may not be possible or
appropriate for all projects. We also note that the Department has
established performance measures for FITW, including cost per
successful outcome.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Through the FITW program, the Department seeks to fund
projects that can make a significant contribution to increasing
knowledge about effective strategies for improving postsecondary
education outcomes. For this reason, all FITW projects are required to
use part of their budgets to conduct independent evaluations of their
projects. Evaluation design is a significant consideration in ensuring
that the independent evaluations help build evidence of effectiveness
and generate replicable results. For that reason, we proposed in
Requirement 5 that, in connection with the requirement that grantees
conduct an independent evaluation, the evaluation design meet What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards. Although we believe that
meeting these evidence standards is the best way to ensure a rigorous
evaluation, we also recognize that these evaluation and evidence
requirements may be new to many potential FITW applicants. Furthermore,
through the selection criteria established in EDGAR, we can encourage
applicants to propose rigorous project evaluations through the What
Works Clearinghouse selection factors. Such an approach, which enables
the Department to rely on the judgment of non-Federal reviewers with
expertise in evaluation design without imposing a pass-fail
requirement, may be preferable in any given year, particularly in the
early years of this program. Accordingly, we believe that it would
benefit potential applicants for the Department to retain the authority
to use the independent evaluation requirement without using the
requirement relating to evaluation design. We have clarified this
distinction in the requirements.
Changes: We have separated proposed Requirement 5 into two
requirements--Requirement 5, relating to the independent evaluation
requirement, and Requirement 6, relating to evaluation design. We have
renumbered the remaining requirements, accordingly.
Definitions
High-Need Student
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify the
definition of ``high-need student'' to ensure that projects focus on
low-income, first-generation, and academically underprepared students.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern that these
students face unique challenges. However, we believe that the proposed
definition of ``high-need student'' adequately includes the recommended
student groups. The definition included in the NPP includes students
who are at risk of educational failure, which could include students
from low-income backgrounds and first-generation students. This
definition also includes an illustrative list of groups that face
unique challenges, such as adult learners, working students, part-time
students, students from low-income backgrounds, students of color,
first-generation students, students with disabilities, and students who
are English learners. Very similar definitions are used in other
Department programs, including i3 and Race to the Top, as well as in
the Supplemental Priorities. We use the same definition in order to
maintain consistency across multiple programs. We are adding ``students
with disabilities'' to the
[[Page 27046]]
illustrative list in the definition of ``high-need student'' for
consistency with other ED programs.
Changes: We have added ``students with disabilities'' to this
definition.
Minority-Serving Institution
Comment: Two commenters addressed the definition of MSI. One
commenter asserted that, similar to MSIs, community colleges enroll and
serve a disproportionate number of high-need students. The commenter
asked the Department to consider the unique operational issues of two-
year colleges, even though they may not have the requisite enrollments
of students of color to qualify as MSIs.
Another commenter proposed, in lieu of the definition for MSI, a
new definition for Institutions with Large-Scale Impact for Minority
Students. This proposed definition would refer to two-year or four-year
institutions with sufficient capacity to affect large-scale change for
Black, Latino, or American Indian students. The commenter proposed that
an institution would be considered to have sufficient capacity under
this definition if it enrolled at least 3,000 Black, Latino, or
American Indian students.
Discussion: The definition of MSI comes from the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), and our intent is to be consistent with
the law. We appreciate the commenters' interest in serving high-need
students. We also agree that community colleges play a critical role in
serving high-need students across the country. In addition, many
community colleges are in fact MSIs. However, we decline to make the
proposed changes to the definition of MSIs. Nothing in this definition,
the priorities, or the authorizing statute prohibits eligible community
colleges, regardless of MSI status, from applying to FITW programs,
provided that the proposed project otherwise meets the requirements.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion--Collaborations
Comment: One commenter supported this selection criterion. The
commenter recommended that we include more specific emphasis on cross-
functional collaborations and holistic program design, to promote
continuous improvement and foster institutional cultures that embrace
feedback.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. We agree
that these types of collaborations can foster success. However, we
believe that applicants are best equipped to design the collaborative
structures that meet their needs.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
Priority 1: Improving Success in Developmental Education
The Secretary gives priority to:
(a) Projects designed to improve student success in developmental
education or accelerate student progress into credit-bearing
postsecondary courses; or
(b) Projects designed to improve student success in developmental
education or accelerate student progress into credit-bearing
postsecondary courses through one or more of the following:
(i) Identifying and treating academic needs prior to postsecondary
enrollment, including while in middle or high school, through
strategies such as partnerships between K-12 and postsecondary
institutions;
(ii) Diagnosing students' developmental education needs at the time
of or after postsecondary enrollment, such as by developing
alternatives to single measure placement strategies, and identifying
specific content gaps in order to customize instruction to an
individual student's needs;
(iii) Offering alternative pathways in mathematics, such as non-
Algebra based coursework for non-math and science fields;
(iv) Accelerating students' progress in completing developmental
education, through strategies such as modularized, fast-tracked, or
self-paced courses or placing students whose academic performance is
one or more levels below that required for credit-bearing courses into
credit-bearing courses with academic supports;
(v) Redesigning developmental education courses or programs through
strategies such as contextualization of developmental coursework
together with occupational or college-content coursework; and
(vi) Integrating academic and other supports for students in
developmental education.
Priority 2: Improving Teaching and Learning
The Secretary gives priority to:
(a) Projects designed to improve teaching and learning; or
(b) Projects designed to improve teaching and learning through one
or more of the following:
(i) Instruction-level tools or strategies such as adaptive learning
technology, educational games, personalized learning, active- or
project-based learning, faculty-centered strategies that systematically
improve the quality of teaching, or multi-disciplinary efforts focused
on improving instructional experiences.
(ii) Program-level strategies such as competency-based programs
that are designed with faculty, industry, employer, and expert
engagement, use rigorous methods to define competencies, and utilize
externally validated assessments, online or blended programs, or joint
offering of programs across institutions.
(iii) Institution-level tools or strategies such as faculty-
centered strategies to improve teaching across an institution, use of
open educational resources, or tailoring academic content and delivery
to serve the needs of non-traditional students.
Priority 3: Improving Student Support Services
The Secretary gives priority to:
(a) Projects designed to improve the supports or services provided
to students prior to or during the students' enrollment in
postsecondary education; or
(b) Projects designed to improve the supports or services provided
to students prior to or during the students' enrollment in
postsecondary education through one or more of the following:
(i) Integrating student support services, including with academic
advising and instruction.
(ii) Individualizing or personalizing support services, such as
advising, coaching, tutoring, or mentoring, to students and their
identified needs using tools or strategies such as predictive analytics
to identify students who may need specific supports, or behavioral
interventions used to provide timely, relevant, and actionable
information for students at critical points such as when they may be at
risk of dropping out.
(iii) Connecting students to resources or services other than those
typically provided by postsecondary institutions, such as providing
assistance in accessing government benefits, transportation assistance,
medical, health, or nutritional resources and services, child care,
housing, or legal services.
(iv) Utilizing technology such as digital messaging to provide
supports or services systematically.
Priority 4: Developing and Using Assessments of Learning
The Secretary gives priority to:
(a) Projects that support the development and use of externally
validated assessments of student learning and stated learning goals; or
[[Page 27047]]
(b) Projects that support the development and use of externally
validated assessments of student learning and stated learning goals
through one or more of the following:
(i) Alternative assessment tools or strategies such as micro- or
competency-based assessments, assessments embedded in curriculum, or
simulations, games, or other technology-based assessment approaches.
(ii) Professional development or training of faculty and staff on
the approaches to developing, using, and interpreting assessments.
(iii) Combining or sequencing assessments from multiple sources to
strengthen diagnostic capabilities.
(iv) Aligning assessments across sectors and institutions, such as
across kindergarten through grade 12 and postsecondary education
systems or across two-year and four-year institutions, to improve
college readiness and content delivery.
(v) Open-source assessments.
Priority 5: Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing and Transfer
The Secretary gives priority to:
(a) Projects designed to develop and implement systems and
practices to capture and aggregate credit or other evidence of
knowledge and skills towards postsecondary degrees or credentials; or
(b) Projects designed to develop and implement systems and
practices to capture and aggregate credit or other evidence of
knowledge and skills towards postsecondary degrees or credentials
through one or more of the following:
(i) Seamless transfer of credits between postsecondary
institutions.
(ii) Validation and transfer of credit for learning or learning
experiences from non-institutional sources.
(iii) Alternate credentialing or badging frameworks.
(iv) Opportunities for students to earn college credits prior to
postsecondary enrollment, such as through dual enrollment, dual degree,
dual admission, or early college programs.
Priority 6: Increasing the Effectiveness of Financial Aid
The Secretary gives priority to:
(a) Projects designed to improve the effectiveness of financial
aid; or
(b) Projects designed to improve the effectiveness of financial aid
through one or more of the following:
(i) Counseling, advising, creation of information and resources,
and other support activities on higher education financing and
financial literacy delivered by financial aid offices or integrated
with other support services provided by institutions, including on
student loan repayment options such as income-driven repayment plans
and public service loan forgiveness and debt management.
(ii) Personalized approaches to financial aid delivery, counseling,
advising, and other support activities, which may include early warning
systems, use of predictive analytics, need-based aid, emergency aid, or
bonuses or other incentives for successful outcomes such as on-time
academic progress and completion.
Priority 7: Implementing Low Cost-High Impact Strategies to Improve
Student Outcomes
The Secretary gives priority to projects that use low-cost tools or
strategies, such as those that use technology, that result in a high
impact on student outcomes.
Priority 8: Improving Postsecondary Student Outcomes at Minority-
Serving Institutions
The Secretary gives priority to projects designed to improve
student outcomes at Minority-Serving Institutions (as defined in this
notice).
Priority 9: Systems and Consortia Focused on Large-scale Impact
The Secretary gives priority to projects that involve consortia of
institutions, including across a college or university system, and
partnerships with leading experts that are implemented at multiple
sites with large sample sizes to allow for more rapid development,
evaluation, and scaling of practices determined to be effective.
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
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education establishes the
following requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of
these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
1. Innovations that Improve Outcomes for High-Need Students: The
Secretary may require that--
(a) Grantees must implement projects designed to improve outcomes
of high-need students (as defined in this notice) in postsecondary
education; or
(b) Grantees must implement projects designed to improve one or
more of the following outcomes of high-need students (as defined in
this notice) in postsecondary education:
(i) Persistence.
(ii) Academic progress.
(iii) Time to degree.
(iv) Completion.
2. Eligibility: The Secretary may make grants to, or enter into
contracts with, one or more of the following:
An institution of higher education, combinations of such
institutions, and other public and private nonprofit institutions and
agencies.
The Secretary will announce the eligible applicants in the NIA.
3. Types of FITW Grants: Awards may be made for Development grants,
Validation grants, and Scale-up grants. The Secretary will announce the
type of grants that applicants may apply for in the NIA.
4. Evidence and Sample Size Standards: To be eligible for an
award--
(a) An application for a Development grant must be supported by one
of the following:
(i) Evidence of promise (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(ii) Strong theory (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(iii) Evidence of promise or strong theory.
The Secretary will announce in the NIA which evidence standard will
apply to a Development grant in a given competition. Under (a)(iii),
applicants must identify whether their application is supported by
evidence of promise or strong theory.
(b) An application for a Validation grant must be supported by
moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(c) An application for a Scale-up grant must be supported by strong
evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
[[Page 27048]]
(d) The Secretary may require that an application for a Development
grant, Validation grant, or Scale-up grant must be supported by one or
more of the following levels of sample size:
(i) Large sample (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(ii) Multi-site sample (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)), such as at
multiple institutions.
(iii) Scaled multi-site sample, such as across a system of
institutions, across institutions in a State, a region, or nationally,
or across institutions in a labor market sector.
The Secretary will announce in the NIA which sample size standards
will apply to each type of FITW grant (Development, Validation, or
Scale-up) that is available.
(e) Where evidence of promise, moderate evidence of effectiveness,
or strong evidence of effectiveness is required to receive a grant, an
applicant's project must propose to implement the core aspects of the
process, product, strategy, or practice from the supporting study as
closely as possible. Where modifications to a cited process, product,
strategy, or practice will be made to account for student or
institutional characteristics, resource limitations, or other special
factors or to address deficiencies identified by the cited study, the
applicant must provide a justification or basis for the modifications.
Modifications may not be proposed to the core aspects of any cited
process, product, strategy, or practice.
5. Independent Evaluation:
(a) The grantee must conduct an Independent Evaluation (as defined
in this notice) of its project. The evaluation must estimate the impact
of the FITW-supported practice (as implemented at the proposed level of
scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(b) The grantee must make broadly available, digitally and free of
charge, through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or informal
(e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, the results of any evaluations it
conducts of its funded activities. The grantee must also ensure that
the data from its evaluation are made available to third-party
researchers consistent with applicable privacy requirements.
(c) The grantee and its independent evaluator must agree to
cooperate on an ongoing basis with any technical assistance provided by
the Department or its contractor, including any technical assistance
provided to ensure that the evaluation design meets the required
evaluation standards, and comply with the requirements of any
evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. This includes
providing to the Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an
updated comprehensive evaluation plan in a format and using such tools
as the Department may require. Grantees must update this evaluation
plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation and
provide the updated evaluation plan to the Department. All of these
updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of the
approved application.
6. Evaluation Design: The evaluation design for a Development
grant, Validation grant, or Scale-up grant must meet one or either of
the following standards:
(i) What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards (as defined in 34
CFR 77.1(c)) without reservations; or
(ii) What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards (as defined in 34
CFR 77.1(c)) with reservations.
The Secretary will announce in the NIA the evaluation standard(s)
that will apply to each type of FITW grant (Development, Validation, or
Scale-up) that is available.
7. Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an award
only for the type of FITW grant (Development, Validation, and Scale-up)
for which it applies. An applicant may not submit an application for
the same proposed project under more than one type of grant.
8. Limit on Grant Awards: The Secretary may choose to deny the
award of a grant to an applicant if the applicant already holds an
active FITW grant from a previous FITW competition or, if awarded,
would result in the applicant receiving more than one FITW grant in the
same year.
9. Management Plan: Within 100 days of a grant award, the grantee
must provide an updated comprehensive management plan for the approved
project in a format and using such tools as the Department may require.
This management plan must include detailed information about
implementation of the first year of the grant, including key
milestones, staffing details, and other information that the Department
may require. It must also include a complete list of performance
metrics, including baseline measures and annual targets. The grantee
must update this management plan at least annually to reflect
implementation of subsequent years of the project and provide the
updated management plan to the Department.
Final Selection Criterion
The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education establishes the
following selection criterion for evaluating an application under this
program. We may apply this criterion or any of the selection criteria
from 34 CFR part 75 in any year in which this program is in effect. In
the NIA, the application package, or both, we will announce the maximum
points assigned to each selection criteria.
1. Collaborations: The extent to which the proposed project is
designed to engage individuals or entities with expertise, experience,
and knowledge regarding the project's activities, such as postsecondary
institutions, non-profit organizations, experts, academics, and
practitioners.
Final Definitions
The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 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.
1. High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure
or otherwise in need of special assistance and support such as adult
learners, working students, part-time students, students from low-
income backgrounds, students of color, first-generation students,
students with disabilities, and students who are English learners.
Note: The Department acknowledges that the definition of high-need
students is not limited to these categories. This definition is for
illustrative purposes and may include other categories of high-need
students.
2. Independent evaluation means an evaluation that is designed and
carried out independent of and external to the grantee, but in
coordination with any employees of the grantee who develop a process,
product, strategy, or practice and are implementing it.
3. Innovation means a process, product, strategy, or practice that
improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes
reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach
widespread effective usage.
4. 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.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of
these priorities, requirements, selection criterion,
[[Page 27049]]
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 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, requirements, selection
criterion, 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.
Summary of potential costs and benefits:
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.
The benefits of the FITW program are the generation of a body of
evidence for what works in postsecondary education through development,
evaluation, and dissemination of innovative strategies to support
students who are at risk of failure in persisting in and completing
their postsecondary programs of study. The priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criterion announced in this notice will
provide applicants a framework for achieving the goals and objectives
of the FITW program.
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.
Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated
authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform
the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary
Education.
Dated: May 5, 2015.
Jamienne S. Studley,
Deputy Under Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11333 Filed 5-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P