[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46817-46819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16810]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2016-OESE-0015; CFDA Number: 84.004D]
Final Priority and Requirement--Equity Assistance Centers
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
(Assistant Secretary) announces a priority and a requirement under the
Equity Assistance Centers (EAC) program. The Assistant Secretary may
use this priority and this requirement for competitions in fiscal year
2016 and later years. We take this action to encourage applicants with
a track record of success or demonstrated expertise in socioeconomic
integration strategies that are effective for addressing problems
occasioned by the desegregation of schools based on race, national
origin, sex, or religion. We intend for the priority and the
requirement to help ensure that grant recipients have the capacity to
support responsible governmental agencies as they seek to increase
socioeconomic diversity, to create successful plans for desegregation,
and to address special educational problems occasioned by bringing
together students from different social, economic, religious, and
racial backgrounds.
DATES: This priority and requirement is effective August 17, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Britt Jung, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E206, Washington, DC 20202-
6135. Telephone: (202) 205-4513 or by email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The EAC program awards grants through
cooperative agreements to operate regional EACs that provide technical
assistance (including training) at the request of school boards and
other responsible governmental agencies in the preparation, adoption,
and implementation of plans for the desegregation of public schools and
in the development of effective methods of addressing special
educational problems occasioned by desegregation.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 42 U.S.C. 2000c--2000c-2
and 2000c-5.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 270.
Note: We published a notice of final regulations elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirement for this
program in the Federal Register on April 1, 2016 (81 FR 18818). That
notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing
the particular priority and requirement.
There are no differences between the proposed priority and
requirement and this final priority and requirement.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priority and requirement, one party submitted a substantive
comment on the proposed priority and requirement. Generally, we do not
discuss technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comment: An analysis of the comment follows.
Comment: One commenter stated that expertise in socioeconomic
integration strategies is valuable, but recommended that we eliminate
the proposed priority on the basis that expertise in areas of sex,
race, and national origin desegregation is more important. The
commenter was particularly opposed to the proposed priority being used
as an absolute priority. The commenter asserted that it is more
important to include a priority for staff qualifications, including
expertise in Federal, State, and local laws related to sex, race, and
national origin discrimination and expertise in related research on
what works to increase all types of integration and avoid
discrimination.
Discussion: While we agree that staff qualifications should include
expertise in Federal, State, and local laws related to sex, race, and
national origin desegregation and related research, we believe that a
priority for expertise in providing technical assistance to increase
socioeconomic diversity will strengthen EAC programs without detracting
from the existing issue areas.
As noted in the notice of proposed priority and requirement, more
than one-third of all American Indian/Alaska Native students and nearly
half of all African-American and Latino students attend high-poverty
schools.\1\ Students attending high-poverty schools continue to have
unequal access to: (1) Advanced coursework; (2) the most effective
teachers; and (3) necessary funding and supports.\2\ Moreover, research
shows that States with less socioeconomically diverse schools tend to
have larger achievement gaps between low- and higher-income
students.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of
Education Statistics, Table 216.6. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_216.60.asp.
\2\ See, e.g., National Center for Education Statistics. (2013).
Digest of Education Statistics, Table 225.40. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_225.40.asp.
Max, Jeffrey, and Steven Glazerman (2014). ``Do Disadvantaged
Students Get Less Effective Teaching?'' U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved
from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144010/pdf/20144010.pdf.
Gray, Lucinda, et al. Educational Technology in U.S. Public
Schools: Fall 2008 (Apr. 2010) (NCES 2010-034). U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, available at:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010034.pdf.
Wells, John, and Laurie Lewis. Internet Access in U.S. Public
Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005 (November 2006). U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, available
at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf.
\3\ Mantil, Ann, Anne G. Perkins, and Stephanie Aberger.
(February 27, 2012). ``The Challenge of High Poverty Schools: How
Feasible Is Socioeconomic School Integration?'' In ``The Future of
School Integration,'' Kahlenberg, Richard D., ed. The Century
Foundation. pp 155-222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that socioeconomic integration strategies can be vital
tools for EAC technical assistance centers in their work to support all
four areas of desegregation assistance: Race, sex, national origin, and
religion. The
[[Page 46818]]
addition of this priority does not alter the civil rights of students,
but rather seeks to ensure that EAC technical assistance centers will
have the tools to use socioeconomic integration strategies in
supporting students' existing rights. We further note that title IV of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and our implementing regulations limit the
centers to providing services upon request. The demand-driven nature of
the program precludes the regional centers from choosing to focus on
any desegregation assistance area at the expense of another. Instead,
all EAC technical assistance centers will be expected to provide
assistance across all of the desegregation assistance areas, upon
request.
We also note that the establishment of this priority does not
identify it as an absolute priority. Instead, we will designate the
type of priority, whether absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational, through a notice in the Federal Register for each
competition.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
This notice contains one final priority.
A track record of success or demonstrated expertise in developing
or providing technical assistance to increase socioeconomic diversity
in schools or school districts as a means to further desegregation by
race, sex, national origin, and religion.
Final Priority
Eligible applicants that have a track record of success or
demonstrated expertise in both of the following:
(a) Providing effective and comprehensive technical assistance on
strategies or interventions supported by evidence and designed to
increase socioeconomic diversity within or across schools, districts,
or communities; and
(b) Researching, evaluating, or developing strategies or
interventions supported by evidence and designed to increase
socioeconomic diversity within or across schools, districts, or
communities.
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 Requirement
Conducting Outreach and Engagement: When providing technical
assistance on socioeconomic diversity in response to requests from
responsible governmental agencies as a means to further desegregation
by race, sex, national origin, and religion, a grantee under this
program must assist in conducting outreach and engagement on strategies
or interventions designed to increase socioeconomic diversity with
appropriate stakeholders, including community members, parents, and
teachers.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority or requirement, 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 this final priority and requirement only on a
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
[[Page 46819]]
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: July 12, 2016,
Ann Whalen,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary Delegated the Duties of Assistant
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2016-16810 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P