[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9096-9133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04291]
[[Page 9095]]
Vol. 83
Friday,
No. 42
March 2, 2018
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for
Discretionary Grant Programs; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2018 /
Notices
[[Page 9096]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2017-OS-0078]
RIN 1894-AA09
Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for
Discretionary Grant Programs
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In order to support and strengthen the work that educators do
every day in collaboration with parents, advocates, and community
members, the Secretary issues 11 priorities and related definitions for
use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs
that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use
an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or
use one or more of the priority's component parts. These priorities and
definitions replace the supplemental priorities published in the
Federal Register on December 10, 2014 and September 14, 2016. However,
if a notice inviting applications (NIA) published before the
applicability date of this notice of final priorities and definitions
included priorities from the December 10, 2014 or September 14, 2016
notices, the included priorities would be in effect for the duration of
the applicable competition.
DATES: These priorities and definitions are applicable April 2, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leticia Braga, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6W231, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 401-0831 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Secretary has outlined a
comprehensive education agenda that includes support for families and
individuals to choose a high-quality education that meets their unique
needs; promotes science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
education, including computer science; develops and supports effective
educators and school leaders; encourages freedom of speech and civil
interactions in a safe educational environment; and fosters success
from early childhood through adulthood. These final priorities and
definitions may be used across the Department of Education's (the
Department) discretionary grant programs to further the Department's
mission, which is ``to promote student achievement and preparation for
global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring
equal access.''
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: This
regulatory action announces 11 supplemental priorities and relevant
definitions. Each major provision is discussed in the Public Comment
section of this document.
Costs and Benefits: The final priorities and definitions would
impose minimal costs on entities that would receive assistance through
the Department's discretionary grant programs. Additionally, the
benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs
because it would result in the Department's discretionary grant
programs encouraging the submission of a greater number of high-quality
applications and supporting activities that reflect the
Administration's educational priorities.
Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant
program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on
applicants by the final priorities are limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program
that is using one or more of the final priorities in its competition.
Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with
program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for
any eligible applicants, including small entities.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
We published a notice of proposed supplemental priorities and
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on October 12, 2017 (82 FR
47484). That notice contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priorities and definitions.
There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final
priorities and definitions (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, more than
1400 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities and
definitions.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general
comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed
priorities or definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities and definitions since publication of
the NPP follows.
General
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for implementing
evidence-based practices, suggesting that their program of interest
would be shown to positively influence children or students.
Discussion: We appreciate hearing from commenters who are involved
in a wide range of educational programs, and the Department supports
these valuable efforts to implement evidence-based practices.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters requested a more focused approach when
considering evidence-based practices. Specifically, one commenter
recommended that the Department fund only evidence-based practices.
Another commenter requested a new priority focused on rigorous
evaluation, in order to develop the evidence base around work funded by
the Department.
Discussion: We believe that evidence of effectiveness is an
important consideration in identifying appropriate priorities for a
discretionary grant competition. The Department has issued regulations
in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)
on the use of evidence in Department programs and has the ability to
use demonstrated evidence of effectiveness as part of the selection
criteria in various grant competitions. However, prior evidence of
effectiveness may not be the only factor that should be considered in a
grant competition, and we think it is important to leave room for
innovative ideas--particularly such ideas that can be subject to a
rigorous evaluation once implemented. Because EDGAR already allows
discretionary programs to use the extent to which an applicant will
conduct a rigorous evaluation of its project as a part of the selection
criteria, we do not think it is necessary to include a supplemental
priority in this NFP that focuses solely on rigorous evaluation.
Comment: Multiple commenters stated that they appreciated the
references to evidence-based models and the use of, and building upon,
evidence. Specifically, these commenters encouraged the Department to
prioritize evidence under Priority 1 where possible, including by
adding a reference to ``evidence-based'' as described in the ESEA, and
EDGAR.
Discussion: We share the commenters' interest in the use and
prioritization of evidence in educational choice. As described in the
NPP, subpart (c) of the priority encourages grantees to develop,
[[Page 9097]]
increase access to, and build evidence of effectiveness of innovative
models of educational choice. We believe we can encourage the
development and use of evidence by using the evidence framework
established in EDGAR, which allows for the incorporation of evidence
definitions and selection criteria into the design of discretionary
grant competitions, and, where appropriate, this framework can be used
in conjunction with the priority. We also note that the definition of
``evidence-based'' in 34 CFR 77.1 aligns with, and builds upon, the
language regarding evidence-based in the ESEA, and we will include in
this priority the citation to the EDGAR definition as well as the ESEA
to ensure that all discretionary programs can employ the definition of
evidence-based that applies to their program. EDGAR selection criteria
also allow for the inclusion of rigorous evaluation in grant programs,
which can be used to determine the impacts of educational choice on
participating students, including students with disabilities, and can
be used to build out the evidence base around educational choice. We
note that multiple commenters recommended a particular evidence-based
model as an option under this priority, but we do not endorse any
specific programs.
Changes: We have revised subpart (c) of the priority to include a
reference to the definition of ``evidence-based'' in 34 CFR 77.1 and
the ESEA, and have made conforming changes to Priorities 6 and 7 as
well.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that contrary or negative
evidence exists on specific educational programs, notably charter
schools, other educational choice programs and school voucher programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern about the
existing body of evidence on educational choice. We believe it is
important to build upon the evidence base and examine more closely the
effectiveness of various options, and how these options are
implemented.
Overall, we view high levels of parent satisfaction as a key
benefit of school choice options such as private school vouchers. As
discussed in the NPP, research shows high satisfaction levels among
private school parents, with more than 80 percent of parents saying
they were ``very satisfied'' with their children's school. Parents of
children at public charter schools and other public schools of choice
also showed levels of satisfaction that were significantly higher than
parents whose children attend geographically assigned district
schools.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cheng, A. and Peterson, P. (2017). How Satisfied are Parents
with Their Children's Schools? Education Next, 17(2). Available at:
http://educationnext.org/how-satisfied-are-parents-with-childrens-schools-us-dept-ed-survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that evidence suggests that some charter school models
might be more effective at improving math and reading scores for low-
income or low-achieving students. For example, a rigorous, random
assignment study funded by the Department's Institute of Education
Sciences found that the study's charter middle schools that are in
urban areas and serve high proportions of low-income or low-achieving
students had positive effects on middle school students' math test
scores.\2\ More recently, a national quasi-experimental design study
found that certain groups of students enrolled in charter schools
across the Nation demonstrated levels of academic growth in math and
reading achievement that exceeded the growth of similar students
enrolled in traditional public schools.\3\ Other research suggests that
specific practices some charter schools use, such as the use of data to
guide instruction, increased instructional time, and more rigorous goal
setting, may improve student outcomes.\4\ Research also suggests that
differences in State charter policies,\5\ including with regard to the
entity responsible for chartering,\6\ such as school districts or
nonprofits, may be related to differences in charter school
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C., and Dwoyer, E. (2010).
The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts: Final Report (NCEE 2010-
4029). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
\3\ Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2015). Urban
Charter School Study: Report on 41 Regions. Stanford, CA: Author.
http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/download/Urban%20Charter%20School%20Study%20Report%20on%2041%20Regions.pdf.
\4\ Tuttle, C., Booker, K., Gleason, P., Chojnacki, G.,
Knechtel, V., Coen, T., Nichols-Barrer, I., and Goble, L. (2015).
Understanding the Effects of KIPP as it Scales: Volume I, Impacts on
Achievement and Other Outcomes. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy
Research. https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/news/kipp-i3-scale-up;
Dobbie, W., and Fryer, Jr., R.G. (2013). Getting Beneath the Veil of
Effective Schools: Evidence from New York City. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4):28-60.
\5\ Davis, D.H., and Raymond, M.E. (2012). Choices for studying
choice: Assessing charter school effectiveness using two quasi-
experimental methods. Economics of Education Review 31:225-236.
\6\ Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Attridge, J., and Obernauf, K. (2014).
Charter School Authorizers and Student Achievement. Education
Finance and Policy, 9(1): 59-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, studies of voucher programs in some districts have
shown small positive or null effects in reading or large effects on
high school graduation or postsecondary outcomes for subgroups of
students and mixed effects in math.\7\ Studies of statewide programs
have shown negative or null effects on academic outcomes,\8\ though
there is some evidence that the effects become less negative over time
for those students who continue to participate over a number of
years.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Witte, J.F., Carlson, D., Cowen, J.M., Fleming, D.J., and
Wolf, P.J. (2012). Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Longitudinal
Educational Growth Study Fifth Year Report. Report of the School
Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Milwaukee Evaluation Report #29; Chingos, M.M., and Peterson, P.E.
(2015). Experimentally estimated impacts of school vouchers on
enrollment and degree attainment. Journal of Public Economics, 122,
1-12; Cowen, J.M. (2008). School choice as a latent variable:
Estimating the ``complier average causal effect'' of vouchers in
Charlotte. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 301-315.
\8\ Mills, J.N. and Wolf, P.J. (2016). The Effects of the
Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement After Two
Years. School Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, AR & Education Research Alliance, Tulane University,
New Orleans, LA; Figlio, D. and Karbownik, K. (2016). Evaluation of
Ohio's EdChoice Scholarship Program: Selection, Competition, and
Performance Effects. Columbus, OH: Fordham Institute.
\9\ Mills, J.N. and Wolf, P.J. (2017). The Effects of the
Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement After Three
Years. School Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, AR & Education Research Alliance, Tulane University,
New Orleans, LA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent analysis of a specific set of voucher programs found that
they can be a cost-effective use of public funding for education. The
study found that private school voucher programs were generally at
least as effective as traditional public schools at improving math and
reading scores and cost the government less.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Shakeel, M.D., Anderson, K.P., and Wolf, P.J. (2017). The
Justice Is Worth the Squeeze: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the
Experimental Evidence on Private School Vouchers across the Globe.
Paper presented at the Spring 2017 conference of the Society for
Research on Educational Effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is committed to building the evidence base for
school choice models further, and these priorities are intended to
support this important work.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters made specific recommendations on the use
of data. One commenter recommended that the priorities include clear
references to the importance of data collection, data security, and the
appropriate use of data to inform evidence-based strategies and further
that the Department should collect data elements that help stakeholders
assess the impact of discretionary grant programs. Another commenter
[[Page 9098]]
recommended that the Department require grantees to provide students,
families, and teachers access to data showing students' learning over
time, build State and local capacity to safeguard data, and train
teachers to use data to make instructional decisions.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the importance of data
collection, data security, and data-based decision-making to the extent
that such collections are useful, cost effective, and not duplicative.
Ensuring that students, families, and teachers have secure and timely
access to student data, and that they are able to utilize the data
presented for informed decision-making, are important aspects of
meeting the unique needs of students. Additionally, we agree that there
is a need to build State and local capacity to protect students'
privacy through secure and confidential data, consistent with the
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g). The
Department has provided technical assistance to State and local
entities to address these needs in multiple ways and will continue to
consider these needs in future discretionary grant opportunities. Given
these ongoing efforts, we do not believe it is necessary to add
specific language to the priorities regarding the use of data.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters requested a separate priority or an added
focus in the final priorities on the area of ``early learning'' or
``early childhood.'' More specifically, some commenters recommended
adding references to ``early learning'' throughout the priorities,
including Priorities 4, 7, 9, and 10. Other commenters recommended that
the definitions of ``educational choice'' and ``high-poverty school''
be amended to include ``early learning.''
Some commenters asked that we expand references to ``teachers and
principals'' to include individuals in the early childhood workforce
who impact the outcomes of our youth, including administrators and
service coordinators (among others).
Additionally, commenters asked that ``early learning'' be an
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority in all
Department discretionary grant competitions.
One commenter requested that we revise the priorities to emphasize
the critical role that families play in child, policy, and systems
development, and recommended specific revisions that would reference
the early childhood population.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. The final
priorities place a renewed focus on the Department's core mission:
Promoting student achievement and preparation for global
competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal
access. The priorities are intended to positively impact all students,
from the early years through adulthood. The Department recognizes the
importance of early learning and its positive outcomes and benefits, as
well as its impact on future academic achievement of students.
The final language in Priority 1 subpart (b)(xv) specifically
focuses on early learning. Subpart (d) of Priority 9 includes projects
that address, ``Increasing the number of children who enter
kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life by supporting
families and communities to help more children obtain the knowledge and
skills to be prepared developmentally.''
We agree with the commenters who requested that we recognize, and
include language to emphasize, early learning. While we do not think it
is necessary to establish a separate priority for early childhood, we
are making specific edits to include the term ``children or students''
in some of the priorities, as well as in the definition of
``educational choice,'' to clarify that the priorities and this
definition may be used in grant programs that serve the early childhood
population.
Furthermore, throughout the priorities, we generally use the term
``educators,'' which we believe includes early childhood service
providers and other school personnel. Similarly, we believe that the
term ``education'' encompasses early learning and does not preclude the
use of the priorities referencing education in discretionary programs
that serve the early childhood population, as appropriate. Lastly, we
decline to revise the definition of ``high-poverty school'' as we
believe that it adequately captures the intended populations within
priorities where such terms are used.
Changes: We have modified Priorities 1(a), 1(b), 2(c), 4(b), 5(a),
6(b), 6(j), 7(c), and 9(b), and the definition of ``educational
choice'' by adding ``children or students'' in order to clarify that
this priority may be used in competitions for discretionary grants that
serve children within the 0-5 age range.
Comment: Multiple commenters requested that the Department include
in the priorities an emphasis on increasing socioeconomic diversity in
schools. These commenters suggested that student diversity in schools
supports improved academic and other outcomes and expressed concern
that the perceived momentum for increasing diversity in schools will be
lost in the absence of a stand-alone priority on diversity. One
commenter highlighted research showing the benefits to students on
outcomes, such as student satisfaction, motivation, and intellectual
self-confidence when they attend schools with students from diverse
backgrounds, including students with disabilities and English learners.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendation to promote
socioeconomic diversity in classrooms, schools, and districts. While we
do not believe a stand-alone priority on increasing diversity is
necessary to achieve this goal, such projects would not be precluded
under Priority 8(b), which, among other things, seeks to increase the
diversity of the educator workforce. Furthermore, nothing in the
priorities would preclude grant applicants from proposing projects
that, in addition to addressing the particular grant program
requirements, are also designed to increase socioeconomic diversity in
classrooms, schools, and districts.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters encouraged the Department to consider
the role that libraries play in advancing the goals of various
priorities, including Priorities 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. These commenters
explained that school libraries (to include libraries in elementary,
secondary and higher education settings, such as universities and
community colleges) and public libraries serve a valuable role in
ensuring that students have access to a wide range of resources to
which they may not otherwise have access, that these resources promote
student literacy in many content areas, and the libraries themselves
serve as a safe space for students and families to engage in literacy
activities that span a wide age range. Commenters indicated that
libraries and librarians play a vital role in promoting economic
opportunity in both urban and rural communities, where literature and
resources may not be readily available to children and families.
While these commenters generally requested that libraries be
recognized throughout the priorities for the value they bring to
education, one commenter requested specifically that public libraries
be included as eligible entities or allowable partners, as applicable,
across the priorities.
Discussion: We recognize the important role that libraries play in
the lives of children and families. Libraries clearly support literacy
in a variety of ways across the content areas reflected
[[Page 9099]]
in these final priorities. We note that libraries are explicitly
included in Priority 6(j) and, furthermore, partnerships with libraries
would not necessarily be precluded under other priorities as a way to
address the requirements within relevant grant programs, though each
program's authorizing statute would determine such eligibility.
Accordingly, we do not think additional references to libraries in the
priorities are necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed hope that the Department would
support the development of a national test in social studies because
the commenter believes that such a test could be used to advance
Priorities 3, 4, and 8.
Discussion: Developing a national test in social studies for use at
the State and local level is beyond the scope of the Department's
mission; this is a State and local responsibility. However, the
Department does administer the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), which is a nationally representative and continuing
assessment of what America's students know and can do in various
subject areas. NAEP periodically assesses some subjects that are often
taught in social studies, including civics, economics, geography, and
U.S. history.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For more information, please see https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested adding language on the
principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in multiple
priorities. Specifically, commenters suggested adding language
providing for the development of curricula and instruction based on the
principles of UDL and the use of UDL in assessment. Several commenters
supported UDL as a successful classroom strategy and recommended that
we require projects to incorporate principles of UDL, in order to
address the needs of individuals with disabilities.
Discussion: The Department believes that learning environments,
academic content, and assessments should be accessible and effective
for all students and supports projects to achieve this goal. We believe
that the language in Priority 5(b) could be inclusive of UDL as a
strategy for meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
We further believe that the priorities offer the flexibility for
applicants to address UDL and similar strategies in their grant
applications. While specific strategies such as UDL are not listed, the
priorities include multiple references to the importance of effective
strategies and evidence-based practices. There is nothing in any of the
priorities that would prohibit the use of UDL, so long as projects
address the requirements of the priorities. For these reasons, it is
not necessary to revise the priorities to provide explicit references
to the strategy.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department develop a
priority focused on alignment between relevant discretionary grant
programs and State or local plans under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that considering alignment
between discretionary grant programs and statutory and regulatory
requirements under the ESEA, where applicable, can help the Department
and grantees to determine the best approach to support State and local
programs. In fact, definitions from the ESEA are used throughout the
priorities. However, program offices can consider how these priorities
align with programs authorized by the ESEA in designing their notices
inviting applications. Additionally, the Department would expect that
all grant applications from LEAs and SEAs would be designed to support
their State and local plans, and does not feel it is necessary to
provide additional points in a competition to an application that does
so. Therefore, we do not believe that a separate priority or subpart
referencing alignment with the ESEA is necessary to achieve the goal of
alignment, where appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters expressed opposition to all priorities
generally. One of these commenters objected to any competitive grant
programs in favor of all Federal funds being allocated to States by
formula and another suggested that competitions be guided solely by the
language in the authorizing statute. Lastly, one commenter objected to
the multiple references to rural schools in light of the challenges
that urban school districts face. This commenter requested urban
districts be acknowledged with emphasis similar to rural school
districts.
Discussion: The Department's discretionary grant programs are
established by statute. Accordingly, the Department does not have
discretion to allocate funds to formula grant programs to the exclusion
of discretionary grant programs authorized by Congress. Discretionary
grant programs encompass a broad array of topics and allow the
Department to more specifically target areas of student and national
need that arise from year to year and competition to competition. The
Department takes this responsibility seriously and expects to use these
priorities in alignment with the authorizing statutes.
We appreciate views of the commenter who suggested we include a
specific focus on urban local educational agencies (LEAs). As we
discussed in the NPP, our focus on students who are served by rural
LEAs is in acknowledgment of the fact that rural students and
communities have unique needs that are not always adequately addressed.
For these reasons, we decline to remove this focus or revise it to
require a focus on students served by rural and urban LEAs and believe
the priorities as a whole sufficiently encompass all students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department add Tribal
leadership in Priorities 3-11 where States and localities are listed in
order to emphasize Tribes, consultation with Tribal council members,
and consideration of Native American students.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request and agree that
all applicants should address the needs of the students proposed to be
served, including Native American students, in designing their projects
within the context of the specific requirements and focus of the
program under which they are applying. With respect to the comment on
tribal consultation, the Department's policy on that issue can be found
here: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/tribalpolicyfinal.pdf.
Changes: None.
Priority 1--Empowering Families and Individuals To Choose a High-
Quality Education That Meets Their Unique Needs
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for Priority 1 and
the focus on educational choice. Additionally, in their support for the
priority, multiple commenters encouraged the Secretary to add one or
multiple areas of emphasis within the priority.
Specifically, commenters emphasized: The role of States, LEAs, and
parents in making decisions regarding choice; ensuring quality
educational choices; and referencing specific groups of students, such
as rural students, English learners, migratory children, low-skilled
adults, and homeless students, or types of options, such as dual
enrollment,
[[Page 9100]]
early college high schools, and Green Ribbon Schools.
Discussion: We agree that this priority, and its focus on providing
families and individuals with access to quality educational options, is
important to best meet their unique needs. The priority and the
accompanying definition of ``educational choice'' offer extensive
flexibilities in how it can be used, the students that can be served,
and the specific choice options available, which all seek to maximize
the availability of high-quality learning opportunities. In addition,
to promote high-quality learning opportunities, subpart (c) of the
priority focuses on developing, increasing access to, and building
evidence-based innovative strategies for promoting models of
educational choice. Furthermore, with this priority we seek to provide
families and individuals with the information and tools they need to
make important decisions regarding which educational options are most
appropriate for them.
We agree with commenters that this priority can be used to focus on
the needs of different groups of students, and the priority is designed
to allow the Department to determine which group or groups should be
the focus of educational choice for a given grant competition that uses
this priority.
The definition of ``educational choice'' provides significant
flexibility, and was structured in this way in order to clarify our
intent that families and individuals should be able to select the most
appropriate educational option to meet their needs. Therefore, we do
not require nor endorse any one option over others, including by
distinguishing between public versus private options, or options in
elementary, secondary, or postsecondary settings. Likewise, we do not
believe that it is appropriate to identify specific Department programs
in the priority as those could change over time and to ensure maximum
flexibility for applicants in responding to this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters requested the inclusion of early
learning as an option for educational choice.
Discussion: We are committed to improving access to high-quality
preschool through 12th grade and postsecondary educational options. We
agree with the commenters, and are adding children in early learning
settings as a group that may be a focus under the priority.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b) of Priority 1 to include
``children in early learning settings'' in the list of targeted groups.
Comment: Multiple commenters requested the inclusion of adult
learners for targeted educational choice, and proposed specific edits
to the priority, including adding references to and definitions from
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that ensuring adults have
access to a diversity of high-quality educational options is essential
for both those individuals themselves and to the future educational
success of their children. However, we do not believe that a specific
reference to the definitions in WIOA is necessary for several reasons.
First, adult learners are not explicitly excluded from the priority as
written. Second, ``low-skilled adults'' are specifically referenced in
subpart (b)(viii). We do not believe it is necessary to include adult
learners explicitly in a separate subpart. That said, we agree it is
important that these final priorities are widely applicable for
discretionary programs that serve a broad spectrum of students,
including adult learners, and are revising the title of this priority
to clarify that adults are also included.
Changes: We have revised the title of Priority 1 to clarify that
adults may be included in programs using this priority.
Comment: Multiple commenters requested that we include community
colleges as a postsecondary option in Priority 1.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that community colleges
play an important role in offering educational choice to students.
However, we believe that community colleges, while not explicitly
referenced, are included under the reference to postsecondary programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters referenced the importance of teachers in
ensuring that students have access to high-quality educational choices.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that teacher quality matters,
and that great teachers contribute enormously to the learning and lives
of children. As such, Priority 8 focuses on developing evidence about
effective professional development programs that support teachers and
leaders as they enter the profession, different leadership pathways for
educators in and out of the classroom, increased diversity through
strategic recruitment, innovative staffing models, and retention of top
talent.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters proposed edits or additional language to
the background section that accompanied Priority 1 in the NPP to
emphasize different points, such as making educational choice options
available to all families in accessible ways and languages, removing
``where possible'' from the background in regard to the use of
evidence-based models, and adding an explicit reference to public
school choice.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the
background section included in the NPP, which explains our rationale
for this priority. We do not include background sections for priorities
in the NFP, nor are the background sections considered part of the
final priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response
to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed opposition to Priority 1.
This opposition included concerns regarding how educational choice
might impact learning and the neighborhoods where students live, and
concerns that parental choice could impact diversity. Commenters also
opposed the use of public funds for education in private or religious
schools, such as through the use of vouchers to offer educational
choice in private schools. These commenters expressed a desire to
defund (or not to fund) private schools or add significant additional
regulations to govern any private schools participating in educational
choice programs. Many commenters cited specific concerns regarding the
impact of this priority on particular groups, such as rural students,
students with disabilities, students who are living in poverty,
students who are Indians, and military- or veteran-connected students.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding
educational choice. We share commenters' support for public education
and believe educational choice is compatible with support for public
schools. We would also note, however, that positive educational
outcomes for students must be prioritized over support for a particular
public or private entity. We believe families are best equipped to make
decisions as to where their children are most likely to achieve the
best outcomes. We are committed to improving access to high-quality
preschool through 12th grade and postsecondary educational options,
offering meaningful choice to families, and providing families with the
information and tools they need to make these important decisions. We
believe that schools and educators aim to serve the public good by
preparing students to
[[Page 9101]]
lead successful lives and that, therefore, we all benefit from
maximizing the availability of high-quality learning opportunities for
students.
It is important to note that with this priority the Department
seeks to maximize the availability of high-quality learning
opportunities, and that private schools, as well as public schools, are
available options listed in the definition of ``educational choice.''
While a number of commenters referenced vouchers, neither the priority
nor the definition of ``educational choice'' explicitly mentions
vouchers.
We share commenters' support for transparency and accountability
for results and believe all schools--public and private--should be held
to high standards. It is important to note that the definition of
``educational choice'' referenced in this priority requires that
opportunities be consistent with applicable Federal, State, and local
laws.
Regarding the impact on particular groups of students, this
priority also is designed to increase access to educational choice for
a wide range of students, including traditionally disadvantaged groups
the Department serves in accordance with its mission. It is important
to note that this priority will be used to complement the applicable
program statute and will not replace statutory requirements under the
ESEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or other
laws, and must be consistent with all applicable Federal and State
laws. This priority only applies to discretionary grant programs and
does not impact formula grant funds, which continue to be a significant
focus for the Department. Thus, this priority cannot be used in formula
grant programs, such as Title I, Part B of the IDEA, or Impact Aid.
We appreciate commenters' concerns regarding the impact of the
priority on rural students. The priority emphasizes offering access to
educational choice for rural students; this group of students is listed
under subpart (b) of the priority. We believe use of this priority will
encourage applicants to propose projects that offer rural families an
alternative educational opportunity that does not exist in many rural
areas, and it will empower families and individuals to choose which
school option is best equipped to meet their unique needs.
Likewise, commenters raised concerns regarding the impact of the
proposed priority on children with disabilities. This group of students
is also specifically identified and listed under subpart (b) of the
priority. As noted above, this priority only applies to discretionary
grant programs and does not impact formula grant programs.
We also appreciate the concerns of multiple commenters about the
potential for this priority to increase segregation in schools. The
priority can be used to reach all students or to specifically target a
group or groups of students, including students living in poverty,
students who are American Indian or Alaska Native, and military- or
veteran-connected students. Moreover, while this priority can be used
for a wide range of programs beyond vouchers, research suggests it is
possible for a voucher program either to not change or to reduce racial
segregation in public schools. A 2016 study \12\ examined how vouchers
impacted racial segregation in public and private schools in the first
year of operation of one State's voucher program (2011-12). The authors
found that the net overall effect of the voucher program across the
voucher students' former public schools and receiving private schools
was reduced school-level racial segregation. In addition, a 2010 study
\13\ found that one district's voucher program did not change the
racial segregation of schools in the voucher students' former public
schools or in receiving private schools. Thus, we do not believe an
additional priority on diversity is needed to address concerns
regarding segregation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Egalite, A.J., Mills, J.N., and Wolf, P.J. (2016). The
Impact of the Louisiana Scholarship Program on Racial Segregation in
Louisiana Schools. SCDP Louisiana Scholarship Program Evaluation
Report #3. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, School Choice
Demonstration Project.
\13\ Green, J.P., Mills, J.N., and Buck, S. (2010). The
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program's Effect on School Integration.
SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report #20. Fayetteville, AR: University
of Arkansas, School Choice Demonstration Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, as with all programs, grant applicants must carry out their
grant in accordance with State, Tribal, and Federal laws and
regulations. We expect the flexibility built into this priority will
allow grantees to take advantage of their unique local practices while
empowering State and local educators and families with the necessary
information to make the right decisions for their children.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters sought clarification on how the
proposed priority aligns with the ESEA. Specifically, a few commenters
expressed concern that this priority contradicts the intent of
competitive grant programs authorized under the ESEA by Congress to
support students in public schools.
Discussion: We disagree that this priority is not in alignment with
the ESEA and the discretionary grant programs that Congress has
established. The priority and the definition of ``educational choice''
are clear that the intent is to expand opportunity for students in
compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws,
including the ESEA, and recognize that such choices may include
programs offered by traditional public schools, public charter schools,
and other education providers. We further note that many discretionary
grant programs encompass broad topics and allow the Department to more
specifically target areas of student and national need from year to
year and competition to competition. The Department will use this
priority in that context and in accordance with the statutory
requirements for the grant program in which it chooses to use the
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with charter
schools and their role under the priority. These commenters cited
concerns that charter schools are able to select their student
populations, resulting in greater segregation in these schools and that
charter schools do not perform as well as their traditional public
school counterparts.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding the
role of charter schools under the priority, but we note that charter
schools are public schools that are held accountable in accordance with
applicable Federal and State law, as required under section 1111(c)(5)
of the ESEA. Each State's charter school law identifies the specific
entities within a State that are eligible to authorize charter schools.
In addition, State charter school laws typically articulate
accountability requirements for charter schools and authorizers.
Charter schools provide enhanced parental choice and, while they
have additional flexibility with regard to certain requirements in
order to foster innovation and reduce burden on schools, they must
still follow relevant State and Federal statutes and regulations. For
example, charter schools must adhere to Federal civil rights laws that
prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin,
disability, sex, and age; and ensure equal access for all students,
including students with disabilities and English learners. Charter
schools may, in some cases, consider additional recruitment efforts
targeted toward groups that might otherwise have limited opportunities
to participate in charter school programs. The decision of whether to
approve, renew, or terminate a charter school contract is
[[Page 9102]]
made at the State and local levels, exclusively. The Department does
not intervene in State and local decisions regarding the opening or
closing of charter schools.
For a summary of charter school performance, see earlier
discussion.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about using this priority,
as well as the other priorities, in any of the Department's Charter
Schools Program competitions, arguing that the Charter Schools Program
already focuses on choice, and the flexibilities offered to charter
schools could be diminished by requiring certain priorities, such as
STEM, be met.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern regarding the use
of the priorities in Charter Schools Program competitions, and want to
clarify the purpose of the priorities. These priorities serve as
options for the Department to use when inviting applications for a
discretionary grant program. For each grant program the Department may
choose which, if any, of the priorities (or subparts) and definitions
are appropriate for the competition with regard to feasibility and
scope. The Department has the discretion to choose which priorities
should be used in each competition, and how the priority would apply;
for example, a priority may be used as an absolute priority (applicants
must address the priority in order to be eligible to receive grant
funds) or a competitive preference priority (applicants may receive
additional points depending on how well they address the priority).
Although we are issuing 11 priorities, we will use only those
priorities that are relevant to, and appropriate for, the particular
program. Furthermore, the Department is not required to use any of
these priorities for any particular program.
With respect to Charter Schools Program discretionary grant
competitions, like all competitions, the priorities we use would work
within the framework of the authorizing statutes and purposes of the
program. The major purposes of the Charter Schools Program are to
expand opportunities for all students, particularly traditionally
underserved students, to attend charter schools and meet challenging
State academic standards; provide financial assistance for the
planning, program design, and initial implementation of public charter
schools; increase the number of high-quality charter schools available
to students; evaluate the impact of charter schools on student
achievement, families, and communities; share best practices between
charter schools and other public schools; encourage States to provide
facilities support to charter schools; and support efforts to
strengthen the charter school authorizing process.
Changes: None.
Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that the use of this
priority could negatively impact locations with existing educational
choice options or locations in which the educational choice options
identified in the priority and definition of ``educational choice'' may
not be available.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns and want to
highlight that this priority is not intended to penalize existing
educational choice efforts; rather, it is meant to spur further
efforts, maximizing the availability of learning opportunities. As
such, we will carefully consider when and how to include this priority
in a discretionary grant competition.
Changes: None.
Priority 2--Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education
With an Increased Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing
Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the priority, and
noted examples of particular approaches that they described as
innovative or cost-effective. Other commenters noted opportunities for
increased efficiencies in program implementation at the Federal level.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the priority
and note that the particular approaches cited in many comments are
allowable under a number of the Department's programs. In addition, we
appreciate the possible increased Federal efficiencies discussed by
some commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: While many commenters supported the priority, some
commenters expressed concern about the priority and stated the
importance of the Federal role in education, particularly to safeguard
the rights of students. Some commenters stated their belief that the
intent of this priority is to shrink the Federal investment in
education. Another commenter suggested that because the recently
reauthorized ESEA already reduces burden, this priority may be
unnecessary.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters who expressed support for
the Department's work to ensure that students have an opportunity to
pursue a high-quality education while their rights are protected. One
objective of this priority is to sharpen the focus on the effectiveness
of efforts dedicated to those goals while reducing and eliminating
extraneous elements that do not benefit students. We agree with
commenters who stated that the ESEA currently requires less direction
from the Federal level than the previous authorization of the ESEA and
that this may result in burden reduction. However, we believe that
additional opportunities--including in areas not governed by ESEA--for
streamlining can be explored. This priority does not reflect a desire
to reduce Federal investment in education (and only Congress can set
funding levels), but rather to most effectively leverage education
funding from all sources to improve outcomes for students.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that we define the term
``outcomes.'' A few commenters recommended that grantees be required to
include multiple measures of success, and one commenter stated that a
focus on outcomes and efficiency favors easily measurable outcomes over
those that are more challenging to measure. One commenter suggested
that outcomes should be assessed in developmentally appropriate ways.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' focus on outcomes and
their specific recommendations. These priorities are designed to have
broad applicability and decisions about which outcomes to target must
be informed by program-specific requirements and the availability of
relevant evidence. Furthermore, 34 CFR 77.1 defines what ``relevant
outcome'' means in the context of levels of evidence that may be
required in a particular notice inviting applications. As a result, we
do not think it is necessary to make the language in this priority more
specific. We also acknowledge that not all important outcomes may be
easily measured, but that holding grantees accountable for measurable
outcomes where possible is often valuable.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters supported the concept of value for
taxpayers, and one commenter supported the priority and suggested that
we explicitly refer to cost-effectiveness. A number of commenters
recommended that entities considering burden reduction or cost savings
should also examine whether outcomes would be improved, and one
commenter expressed doubt that it was possible to streamline education
while improving outcomes. Another commenter stated
[[Page 9103]]
that grantees should be focused on increasing the quality of public
education and not on increased value to taxpayers.
Discussion: We believe that examining the efficiency and
effectiveness of investments in education is critical. If decision-
makers know which investments accomplish greater outcomes for the
amount of funding invested relative to other similar investments--that
is, which investments are more cost-effective--funds can be more
effectively leveraged to meet program goals. We disagree that
streamlining education and improving outcomes are goals that are at
odds; rather, we believe that they work in concert. No one can
reasonably say that every single dollar in education is currently being
put to the very best use. While such an outcome may never be realized,
reducing waste and inefficiency can mean there are more funds available
to serve students. We agree that thinking ahead to where resources
could be redeployed when efficiencies are found is a good course of
action, but certainly recognize it is not always possible. Further, we
believe that it is imperative to demonstrate to taxpayers that
investments in education are providing real benefits for the public and
are managed in a manner that is efficient and effective.
Changes: We have revised the priority so that the term
``effectiveness'' is now ``cost-effectiveness.''
Comment: Numerous commenters suggested a stronger emphasis on
evidence in this priority, recommending that we only support evidence-
based approaches. Some commenters asked that we use the definition of
``evidence-based'' that is used in the ESEA.
Discussion: The Department is committed to the development and use
of evidence. We note that the evidence framework and definitions in
EDGAR align with the definitions in the ESEA. These evidence
definitions can be combined with these supplemental priorities and so
there is no need to repeat them, except in cases where we believe the
use of evidence is essential within a supplemental priority. We would
like evidence of effectiveness to inform decision-making when it is
available; however, we also wish to maintain flexibility in cases where
evidence of effectiveness can be built from the lower levels of
evidence articulated in the EDGAR definition (i.e., ``promising
evidence'' or ``demonstrates a rationale'').
Changes: None.
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for a focus on
innovation. Some commenters noted that innovation does not necessarily
lead to improved outcomes, and others stated that innovation must not
be at the expense of what is evidence-based. One commenter recommended
that we define ``innovation.''
Discussion: The term ``innovation'' may mean different things in
different contexts and grant programs and so we do not believe that a
definition of innovation is needed. While innovation can lead to new
lessons for the field, we agree that every new approach tried will not
necessarily be successful. For this reason, it is important that
innovative approaches that demonstrate the lower levels of evidence
articulated in the EDGAR definition (i.e., ``promising evidence'' or
``demonstrates a rationale'') be properly evaluated, in order to build
evidence of effectiveness.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we include research in
subpart (b).
Discussion: We agree with the commenter who proposed that we
specify that research also has the potential to lead to breakthroughs
in the delivery of educational services.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b) to support ``research'' in
addition to ``innovative strategies.'' We also added the phrase ``or
other significant and tangible educational benefits to students,
educators, or other Department stakeholders'' to the end of the subpart
to clarify our intent that this subpart be flexible enough to be used
in programs that do more than fund ``services.''
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed strong support for reducing
compliance burden in education, both generally and as it relates to
discretionary grant programs. For example, one commenter discussed the
administrative tasks that teachers manage and cited a recent Government
Accountability Office study on burden reduction efforts.\14\ Numerous
other commenters noted the importance of ensuring safeguards for
vulnerable populations, including students with disabilities, when
regulatory burdens are reduced. These commenters noted that protecting
students' civil rights is essential, and that many regulatory
requirements are in place because of the work of parents and advocates
with a goal of ensuring equality of opportunity for all students. One
commenter said that the goal of reducing compliance burden may be
appropriate at the Federal level but not for grantees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ State and Local-Imposed Requirements Complicate Federal
Efforts to Reduce Administrative Burden. www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-25. 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: We agree that protecting students' educational
opportunities and civil rights is essential, and believe that reducing
unnecessary compliance burdens will increase the time available to
focus on providing a high-quality education to students. For example,
time that teachers are spending doing paperwork is time that they are
not able to use to educate students or plan future lessons, and money
spent hiring compliance officers takes funds away from core educational
programs. We note that some compliance-related activity is important to
ensure that schools, districts, and States are meeting legal
requirements, including ensuring that all students have available to
them a free appropriate public education. It is also important to note
that not all compliance activities have clear, meaningful purposes. As
such, we believe that the benefit of imposed burdens should be
carefully examined. This priority is intended to prevent the creation
of unnecessary burden at both the State and local levels while
implementing Federal programs, and to engage participants in grant
programs in helping to reduce burden where it is not aligned with an
important right or benefit for students.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that diverse stakeholder groups
should have the opportunity to contribute to State and local
determinations of whether a burden is unnecessary.
Discussion: We agree that stakeholder input is important in making
determinations about burden; stakeholder input has been, and will
continue to be, an essential consideration at the Federal level, and we
encourage the same at the State and local levels.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters proposed naming Pay for Success as a
strategy that would advance the goals of the priority.
Discussion: We agree that Pay for Success could be an approach that
is used under this priority if it is otherwise allowable and
appropriate for the particular program to which the priority is
applied. We do not think it is necessary or appropriate to add a
specific reference to Pay for Success.
Changes: None.
Comment: Under subpart (e), one commenter requested that we clarify
what is meant by ``development capabilities.'' Another commenter
supported leveraging private funds but cautioned that private funds
should not
[[Page 9104]]
replace public funds in implementing social programs due to concerns
about sustainability.
Discussion: We seek to encourage grantees under the Department's
programs to leverage the diverse sources of support that may exist for
their activities, beyond what is provided by the Department. Activities
that could be carried out under subpart (e) could include projects for
new audiences and launching joint initiatives with like-minded
entities. This priority could improve the sustainability of activities
launched with or supported by Federal funds, by leveraging private
funds to further support or expand such activities.
Changes: To clarify that strengthening development capabilities in
order to increase private support for institutions may occur in a
manner other than obtaining matching support for proposed projects, we
have divided subpart (e) into two subparts, now subparts (e) and (f).
Comment: Numerous commenters recommended that the Department
include a priority for partnerships with organizations that have the
ability to serve more students than States or LEAs can serve alone.
Discussion: We appreciate these comments and agree that
partnerships with community-based organizations can increase the
benefits achieved by the Department's programs. Further, we agree that
such partnerships would address the purpose of this priority.
Changes: We have added a new subpart (g) that would allow for
partnerships with different entities to help meet the goals of the
project.
Comment: One commenter proposed that Indian Tribes be included in
the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation. Though
Indian Tribes were not explicitly mentioned in the background for the
priority in the NPP, we note that the priority can be used by programs
that serve Native American youth.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: The Department wishes to clarify that Priority 2(f) may
include a specific percentage amount above a program's existing level
of required private support or existing match requirements. If a
program does not have either requirement, the priority could require a
specific percent match of non-Federal funds relative to the total
amount of Federal resources provided through the grant.
Changes: We have revised Priority 2(f) by adding subparts (i),
(ii), and (iii), which designate specific percentages of the total
amount of the grant provided by Federal sources required from non-
Federal sources. Programs may select a specific subpart in order to
incentivize or require a specific level of demonstrated matching
support.
Priority 3--Fostering Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining
Knowledge and Skills
Comment: Several commenters expressed general support for Priority
3. One commenter reported that many public high school students in the
commenter's State participate in programs that integrate rigorous
academic courses with sequenced, high-quality career and technical
education (CTE), work-based learning, and other support services.
Another commenter expressed strong support for the priority's emphasis
on ensuring that students graduate with the knowledge and skills
necessary to succeed in their postsecondary endeavors. Another
commenter asserted that this priority will increase the opportunities
for students to obtain careers that can support families, and thought
that the priority will help students reach their career goals in
innovative, nontraditional ways.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support. We agree that
rigorous academic courses with sequenced, high-quality CTE and work-
based learning are an important part of a strong career pathways
system. We also recognize the importance of preparing students with the
skills necessary to succeed in postsecondary education and to develop
innovative pathways for students to reach their career goals.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended adding ``for Rewarding
Careers'' at the end of the title of Priority 3.
Discussion: We decline to accept the suggestion because we think
the title conveys adequately the content of the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we focus on the
multidimensional needs of students and the teaching profession.
Discussion: We appreciate the suggestion and note that nothing in
Priority 3 precludes schools and their administrators from addressing
the multidimensional needs of students and teachers. However, we do not
think it is appropriate to create such a narrow focus on those needs in
this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: In regard to subpart (a), one commenter expressed concern
about the promotion of collaboration between education providers and
employers. The commenter contended that employers had been given the
opportunity to inform the development of State elementary and secondary
education standards in recent years and that making further changes to
these standards would harm students.
Discussion: The priority does not mention State elementary and
secondary education standards, and in no way requires or encourages
grantees to revise these State standards as a result of collaboration
between education providers and employers. However, we are clarifying
that the priority focuses on ensuring that student learning objectives
for particular courses or programs are aligned with necessary skills or
knowledge.
Changes: We have revised subpart (a) to state that student learning
objectives be aligned with in-demand skills.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we include in subpart (a)
consultation with individual educators, and not only education
providers, in the collaboration with employers.
Discussion: We agree that individual educators may benefit from
greater interaction with employers. However, we decline to mandate
their inclusion in an education provider's collaboration with
employers, in order to preserve an applicant's flexibility to determine
how it can best address subpart (a).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged us to modify Priority 3 to encourage
partnerships between elementary and secondary education providers,
institutions of higher education, and business and industry that
provide high-quality, work-based learning opportunities.
Discussion: Subpart (c) of Priority 3 focuses on work-based
learning experiences leading to the attainment of skills demanded by
employers. We think that projects that include the kind of partnerships
recommended by the commenter would be responsive to subpart (c) and
well-positioned to provide students with high-quality, work-based
learning opportunities. However, we decline to require all projects to
include such partnerships to preserve an applicant's flexibility to
determine how it can best address subpart (c).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to
promote arts education because the commenter believes that
participation in arts education helps students develop creativity.
Another
[[Page 9105]]
commenter suggested revising the priority to include pilot programs
that make the senior year of high school a service year. A third
commenter recommended that we include environmental education in
Priority 3.
Discussion: We appreciate that an array of subjects and
instructional approaches, such as those recommended by the commenters,
can be part of a well-rounded education and can help students develop
critical knowledge and skills. While nothing in this priority
necessarily precludes the consideration of these subjects and
approaches, we believe that the specific skill needs in States or
regional economies should guide the selection of subjects and
approaches, as appropriate and as aligned with the requirements of a
particular discretionary grant program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we specify that creating or
expanding opportunities for individuals to obtain recognized
postsecondary credentials in STEM must be achieved by making
improvements in STEM instruction and programs at the high school level.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that making improvements in
high school instructional practices and programs is one way to create
or expand opportunities for individuals to acquire postsecondary STEM
credentials, but we disagree that the priority should be focused
exclusively on high schools. We intend to use the priority in a wide
variety of Department grant programs, including programs that provide
support for postsecondary education. Postsecondary instruction and
programs have a direct impact on the ability of individuals to earn
postsecondary STEM credentials.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that we include in subpart (e)
of the priority standards-based grading as an example of another
approach that, like competency-based learning, enables students to earn
recognized postsecondary credentials by demonstrating prior knowledge
and skills. One of these commenters also recommended including
interactive engagement because the commenter believes this set of
practices can help students develop the communication, collaboration,
and creative and critical thinking skills that are in demand by
employers.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' interest in standards-
based grading, a term that is often used to describe a set of practices
that includes assessing and reporting student achievement in relation
to standards, giving a student multiple opportunities to demonstrate
mastery of a standard, and permitting a student to advance in a course
only upon his or her mastery of a standard.\15\ We decline to add
standards-based grading as an example in subpart (e) because this term
is most commonly used in elementary and secondary education settings,
rather than postsecondary education, which is the focus of subpart (e).
Additionally, as it is typically implemented, standards-based grading
does not eliminate ``seat time'' requirements (i.e., requirements that
students complete a minimum amount of instructional time to earn
credit), which is one of the most important features of competency-
based learning.\16\ We also appreciate the interest in interactive
engagement, a term that describes a set of instructional practices
sometimes used in physics and other science courses,\17\ but we decline
to include it in subpart (e) because we do not prescribe specific
instructional practices in these priorities. Applicants are best suited
to propose appropriate instructional practices for the populations they
serve and in the disciplines and settings in which they provide
instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Heflebower, T., Hoegh, J.K., and Warrick, P. (2014). A
School Leader's Guide to Standards-Based Grading. Bloomington, IN:
Marzano Research.
\16\ Townsley, M. (2014). What is the Difference between
Standards-Based Grading (or Reporting) and Competency-Based
Education? CompetencyWorks. Available at: www.competencyworks.org/analysis/what-is-the-difference-between-standards-based-grading/.
\17\ Hake, R. ``Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional
Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for
Introductory Physics Courses.'' American Journal of Physics 66, 64
(1998). Available at: http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.18809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters contended that local National Writing
Project sites help teachers improve student learning in CTE, as well as
other content areas, and asked that our grants support these projects.
Discussion: We agree that proficiency in writing is an important
skill that students need to be successful in the workplace, but it is
not appropriate to endorse or pre-select any specific project; instead,
it is appropriate to rely on the established, objective grant-selection
process.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that we include adult
education in the priority. Another commenter expressed the view that
Adult Basic Education (ABE) and adult secondary education programs are
critical to the success of career pathways programs, and that many of
these programs have developed effective models for collaboration with
employers. Other commenters shared examples of adult education programs
that they believed addressed Priority 3.
Discussion: We agree that some subparts of the priority, such as
subpart (d) and its focus on career pathways, are relevant to adult
education. However, we decline to revise the priority to explicitly
include adult education in order to maintain maximum flexibility. We
appreciate learning from the other commenters about adult education
programs that address Priority 3.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority, but,
with respect to subpart (e), indicated that academic institutions
should have the authority to determine if an individual demonstrates
sufficient prior knowledge and skills to merit credit.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. We note that
these priorities will be used in discretionary grant competitions and
do not impose any requirements on educational institutions that choose
not to submit an application. Moreover, we expect that educational
institutions that do choose to apply will play a central role in
determining how and the extent to which credit is granted for a
demonstration of prior knowledge and skills.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended modifying Priority 3 to identify
after-school and summer learning as options for providers of self-
guided and work-based learning.
Discussion: We agree that self-guided and work-based learning can
occur after school or during the summer months. Projects that address
Priority 3 may include after-school and summer learning opportunities
to the extent that this is permissible under the program's underlying
statute and any regulations that may have been promulgated.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that work-based learning
programs promoted by Priority 3 should include programs that prepare
individuals to enter the early childhood workforce.
Discussion: We agree that such projects may be responsive to
subpart (c) of Priority 3 if the skills leading to employment as an
early childhood educator are in demand in the State or regional economy
involved.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that, in subpart (c), we include
workplace education programs for low-skilled incumbent workers in
[[Page 9106]]
the list of examples of work-based learning. Another commenter
recommended that we add ``national service'' or ``service years'' to
the list of work-based learning experiences.
Discussion: Subpart (c) focuses on work-based learning experiences
that help individuals obtain in-demand employability and technical
skills. It identifies three examples: Internships, apprenticeships, and
fellowships. While we agree that workplace education programs are
valuable, we feel they are not the right fit here, because they provide
instruction in basic skills rather than employability or technical
skills. Similarly, while we agree that national or community service
can offer many benefits for students and the community, their primary
purpose is not to equip participants with in-demand employability and
technical skills.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority and
requested that the Department allow teachers in nonpublic schools to
participate in grant programs that use the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. The statutes
that authorize the Department's grant programs for which the priority
may be used determine whether and the extent to which nonpublic schools
may participate. We cannot change these statutes through the
Supplemental Priorities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to
promote only apprenticeships that are not registered with the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL), while another commenter recommended that we
include only apprenticeships registered with DOL. The latter commenter
contended that registration with DOL would ensure that the
apprenticeship is high-quality.
Discussion: Apprenticeship is a type of postsecondary education and
training that combines paid on-the-job training (OJT) with related
technical instruction. The registration to which the commenters refer
is a voluntary system that originated with the National Apprenticeship
Act of 1937.
We do not think amending the priority to limit its scope to
registered apprenticeships is merited. We also do not agree that
excluding registered apprenticeships from the priority is merited.
While the differences between registered and unregistered
apprenticeships provide drawbacks and benefits to each, we believe the
greatest benefits can be achieved by allowing flexibility for both.
We note that the quality and other merits of proposed projects that
address this priority will be assessed by peer reviewers using general
selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 and criteria developed under 34 CFR
75.209. For example, 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design)
includes factors that ask applicants to describe the extent to which
the proposed project is supported by evidence and the extent to which
the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter indicated that community colleges would need
``an improved infrastructure'' to deliver competency-based learning,
which is an example in subpart (e). Two other commenters indicated that
competency-based learning is challenging and costly for institutions to
implement.
Discussion: We agree that implementing competency-based learning
and other strategies that offer individuals the opportunity to
demonstrate their prior attainment of knowledge and skills can be a
challenge for all kinds of educational institutions, including
community colleges. By highlighting these strategies in the priority,
we hope to support projects that will yield useful information and
insights that can be used to facilitate their effective implementation.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that veterans who
participate in competency-based education programs may only need to
enroll part-time, and for shorter periods of time, which could affect
their ability to access their education benefits under the GI Bill. One
of these commenters was also concerned about the implications of
competency-based education for an individual's eligibility for other
Federal student financial assistance.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns and agree that
the impact on students' eligibility for veterans' education benefits
and Federal student aid available under Title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 as amended (HEA) is an important consideration
for institutions of higher education as they design and implement
competency-based education programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended adding providers of CTE as an
additional example of the types of education providers identified in
subparts (b) and (d).
Discussion: We appreciate the suggestion, but the lists of
providers in subparts (b) and (d) are not intended to be exhaustive and
encourage a diverse group of applicants to participate in programs
utilizing this priority to the extent allowed by authorizing statutes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported the priority but was concerned
that it was difficult to locate affordable industry-recognized
certifications that were appropriate for high school students. The
commenter requested that the Department address this need.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. Developing new
industry-recognized certification exams that are appropriate for high
school students is outside the scope of the Department's mission; this
is a private sector responsibility. However, we do note that, under
some limited circumstances, funding available to LEAs under the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins Act) may be
used to pay fees associated with a technical skill assessment that is
aligned with industry-recognized standards and that is related to a
student's CTE coursework.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For more information, please see Questions and Answers
Regarding the Implementation of the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/PCRN/docs/Compiled_List_of_QAs-8-8-16.docx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters were supportive of the priority and shared
programs they felt would align with it. One commenter shared
information about the availability of a mobile technology center that
seeks to address the needs of students for access to up-to-date
equipment, skilled instructors, and laboratory space. Another commenter
indicated that the project it implements with funds from the
Department's Native American Career and Technical Education Program
(NACTEP) addresses Priority 3.
Discussion: We appreciate learning about these programs. However,
the notice inviting public comment did not solicit applications for
funding and these commenters are encouraged to work through the normal
grant-making process.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority and urged
that students with disabilities be held to high standards and graduate
ready for college or career, through earlier transition planning and an
exploration of all potential pathways to ensure independence.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to set high expectations
for all students, including students with disabilities. Priority 3
includes all
[[Page 9107]]
students and, therefore, its focus is not limited to any specific
subset of students. Because the priority neither limits expectations
for a subset of students nor restricts access to particular students,
we do not think revising the priority is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we clarify that CTE
programs are available and appropriate for all students, including
students with disabilities.
Discussion: We agree that CTE programs should be accessible to, and
are appropriate for, all students who wish to enroll in them, including
students with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we take into account the
need to provide different and more supports for individuals with fewer
skills in the design of pathway programs.
Discussion: We agree that the designs of the pathway programs
promoted by Priority 3 should generally consider and address the needs
of low-skilled individuals. We think that this concern is best
addressed through the use of the general selection criteria in 34 CFR
75.210 that will be used by peer reviewers to evaluate each
application. We note, for example, that 34 CFR 75.210(d) (Quality of
Project Services) includes a factor that evaluates the extent to which
the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to
the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those
services.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that we add a new subpart
to give priority to projects that examine and address barriers to
obtaining industry-recognized and other workforce credentials for
individuals with disabilities.
Discussion: The Department agrees that students with disabilities
may face additional barriers to obtaining credentials, and we currently
support discretionary grant programs focused on the needs of this
population. Priority 3 includes all students and, therefore, its focus
is not limited to any specific subset of students. Because the priority
neither limits expectations for a subset of students nor restricts
access to particular students, we do not think revising the priority is
necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that we delete from the
priority references to ``in-demand industry sectors or occupations,'' a
term we defined using the definition from WIOA. A few commenters
maintained that this definition is appropriate only for short-term
workforce development programs and argued that schools should have the
flexibility to provide career preparation for a broad range of
occupations. Another commenter contended that, in some places, State
and local workforce development boards had only identified a few
priority industry sectors and occupations. One commenter suggested that
we give priority not only to programs that prepare individuals for
careers in ``in-demand industry sectors or occupations,'' but also to
programs that prepare individuals for careers in what the commenter
labeled as ``high-value industry sectors and occupations,'' such as
teaching.
Discussion: We think the principal reason that individuals enroll
in CTE programs is to secure knowledge and skills that are in demand in
the labor market. We agree that these specific skill needs can vary by
State and local context, can include jobs that are ``high value,'' and
that such needs could include the skills needed for effective teaching.
However, we feel that the definition of an ``in-demand industry sector
or occupation'' in WIOA provides a clear criterion that allows for
State-level flexibility, while also maintaining consistency in how to
establish the applicable sectors and occupations considered in grants
that incorporate this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters recommended combining subparts (b) and (d)
of the priority because they believe the two are similar.
Discussion: While subparts (b) and (d) are similar in that both
include a focus on pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials,
subpart (d) differs from (b) in that it also includes pathways that
lead to the obtainment of job-ready skills.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended striking the general
references to ``pathways'' and ``paths'' in subparts (b) and (d) and
replacing them with specific references to ``programs of study'' as
defined by the Perkins Act.
Discussion: While we agree that Perkins Act ``programs of study''
are one pathway to a recognized postsecondary credential, we do not
believe other pathways, such as apprenticeships or ``career pathways''
as defined by section 3(7) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act, should be excluded from the two subparts. We also note that the
priority is intended to be used by a wide variety of the Department's
discretionary grant programs, and not only those authorized by the
Perkins Act.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority, but
recommended revising subpart (d) to include the definition of
``eligible career pathway program'' from section 484(d)(2) of the HEA.
The commenter contended that this change was necessary to permit
applicants to propose career pathway programs that include both
secondary and postsecondary credentials.
Discussion: Subpart (d) identifies career pathway programs as an
example of an innovative path to a recognized postsecondary credential
or job-ready skills and defines the term by cross-referencing the
definition found in WIOA. We note that the WIOA definition used in
subpart (d) does include postsecondary credentials. This definition
specifies that a career pathway ``enables an individual to attain a
secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, and at least one
recognized postsecondary credential.'' The text of the HEA definition
recommended by the commenter is identical to the WIOA definition. We
decline to make the recommended change because it is unnecessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the priority but
recommended that we include a number of strategies, including flexible
scheduling; labor market alignment; wraparound support services;
stackable credentials; acceleration strategies, like dual enrollment;
and opportunities for work-based learning. Another commenter suggested
including an additional subpart focused on strategies that facilitate
credit transfer, while a third commenter recommended that we add a
subpart that would support programs that provide integrated student
supports that include academic and non-academic college and career
guidance and accelerated and targeted instruction for historically
underserved students who require additional support.
Discussion: Two of the strategies recommended, labor market
alignment and work-based learning, are included in subparts (a) and
(c), respectively. We agree that the remaining strategies identified by
the commenters may be helpful to projects as they seek to provide
individuals with flexible pathways to recognized postsecondary
credentials, skills in demand, and careers, but we think that
applicants are best suited to identify and propose the strategies that
are appropriate for their
[[Page 9108]]
target populations and project designs and, therefore, decline to add
subparts or amend this priority as suggested.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we add a new subpart
focused on financial literacy and statistics.
Discussion: We agree that financial literacy and statistics are
important topics that applicants may wish to address in their projects.
While we decline to add a new subpart covering these topics in this
priority, we do cover financial literacy in Priority 4.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter cautioned against creating new pathways to
postsecondary credentials or the workforce that do not meet the same
rigorous standards that are required for a high school diploma. Another
commenter expressed the same concern and recommended including language
in subparts (b) and (d) to ensure that the pathways that are their
focus would meet the same standards required for a high school diploma.
Two other commenters sought the addition of assurances that projects
that address Priority 3 will not result in a ``watered-down
curriculum'' or tracking by race, ethnicity, gender, and income. A
fourth commenter urged us to require in subpart (e) that competency-
based learning programs be ``defined and high-quality.''
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns about the rigor
of alternative pathways that may be proposed by applicants in response
to this priority, but we note that the quality and other merits of
proposed projects that address this priority will be assessed by peer
reviewers using general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 and
criteria developed under 34 CFR 75.209. Several of these selection
criteria address the commenters' concerns. For example, 34 CFR
75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design) includes a factor that asks
applicants to describe the extent to which the proposed project is part
of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support
rigorous academic standards for students. We expect high standards to
be maintained for all students, including various subgroups.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter indicated that a high school diploma should
signify readiness for both college and careers and that the standards
and requirements necessary for attainment should be the same for
students who intend to work after graduation as for students who intend
to enroll in college.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's sentiment and note that
nothing in Priority 3 requires or encourages States or school districts
to set lower expectations for students whose immediate post-graduation
plans do not include enrolling in postsecondary education. This remains
a State and local decision.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters supported the participation of homeless
youth in competency-based learning, but cautioned against segregating
homeless youth in these programs.
Discussion: Consistent with the requirements of Title VII-B of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended by the ESSA,
homeless children and youth must have equal access to the same free,
appropriate public education as provided to other children and youth
and that homeless children and youth must not be segregated on the
basis of their status as homeless.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to
encourage States to continue to invest in State longitudinal data
systems (SLDS) so that they are able to connect data across systems.
This would help States to understand better the employment outcomes of
students, disaggregate achievement data for students who are homeless,
in the foster care system, or military connected, and create formal
data governance structures and processes.
Discussion: We agree that appropriate transparency is worthwhile,
but we do not agree that these topics are consistent with the general
purposes of the priority, which is to support flexible and affordable
pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials, job skills in demand,
and success in the labor market. While it is possible, under some
circumstances, that a project that is responsive to the priority may
utilize SLDS data on employment outcomes and use grant funds for this
purpose, a project that is focused entirely on improving or expanding
SLDS would not meet the priority. However, Congress has appropriated
funds for this purpose in the past and may do so again in the future.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported Priority 3 but recommended that we
require that postsecondary degree and certificate programs be aligned
with current labor market needs and that the institutions that offer
them provide students with the support and resources they need to
succeed, including instructional support from faculty.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendations but
believe that these concerns can be addressed through the use of the
selection criteria that peer reviewers will use to evaluate
applications. Generally, priorities are used in discretionary grant
competitions to guide applicants to propose projects that address
certain topics or needs, such as opportunities for individuals to
obtain recognized postsecondary credentials in STEM. They instruct
applicants what to propose, while the Department uses selection
criteria to evaluate how well applicants would implement their proposed
projects in the context of the priority, in addition to the underlying
statute and any applicable rules and regulations. Several of the
selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 address the commenters' concerns.
For example, 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design) includes
factors that ask applicants to describe the extent to which the
proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching
and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students and
the extent to which the project's design is appropriate to, and will
successfully address, the needs of the target population or other
identified needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that we specify in subpart
(f) that it includes computer science and indicate that computer
science should be a particular focus of projects that address subpart
(f).
Discussion: We agree that computer science should be included in
the list of postsecondary credentials under subpart (f).
Changes: We have revised subpart (f) to include computer science.
Comment: Some commenters asked that we include in Priority 3
pathways that lead to job-readiness certificates or industry
credentials.
Discussion: We did not make this change because it is unnecessary.
Subpart (d) includes pathways that lead to ``job-ready skills'' and
subpart (e) includes pathways to ``an industry-recognized certificate
or certification.''
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters expressed support for the priority and
encouraged us to strengthen the role of coordinators of Education for
Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) Programs in promoting the flexible
pathways promoted by Priority 3, as well as to foster greater
collaboration among EHCY coordinators, youth programs funded by Title I
of WIOA, and Runaway and Homeless Youth Act grantees.
[[Page 9109]]
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations but do not think it
is appropriate to modify Priority 3 to identify particular grant
programs so that the priority may be used by a variety of Department
discretionary grant programs, including programs at the postsecondary
level. However, discretionary grant programs serving homeless youth may
use this priority in their competitions should they choose to do so.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters encouraged the Department to consider
the return on investment for fostering civic engagement and workforce
skills beginning in early childhood.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment and would note that, while
there is nothing in Priority 3 that precludes an applicant from
proposing a project that includes early childhood education, the focus
of the priority is on skills for employment and later life and so
offices and grant reviewers would need to make determinations on an
individual basis.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported the emphasis within Priority 3 on
competency-based learning and noted that competency-based learning is
especially relevant to engineering education in elementary and
secondary schools because design, analysis, and technical skills may be
fostered through innovative partnerships with industry. The commenter
cautioned, however, that workforce experiences must be connected to
classroom instruction.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's views on competency-based
learning as it relates to engineering education in elementary and
secondary schools. We note that subpart (e) of the priority identifies
competency-based learning as an example of a strategy that can be used
to earn a recognized postsecondary credential. Thus, we think that a
project that includes competency-based learning in high school would be
responsive to subpart (e) if it were part of a pathway that culminated
with a recognized postsecondary credential, such as an associate degree
in engineering technology.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported Priority 3, but cautioned the
Department against discouraging students from pursuing baccalaureate
degrees.
Discussion: Nothing in Priority 3 discourages students from
pursuing baccalaureate degrees. The definition of ``recognized
postsecondary credential'' that we use in Priority 3 is from section
3(52) of WIOA and explicitly includes a baccalaureate degree.
Specifically, the definition is as follows:
``The term `recognized postsecondary credential' means a credential
consisting of an industry-recognized certificate or certification, a
certificate of completion of an apprenticeship, a license recognized by
the State involved or Federal Government, or an associate or
baccalaureate degree.''
As a result, we do not believe that any changes are necessary to
address this concern.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter contended that professionals who transition
from industry to become CTE teachers should have a strong education
foundation that can be provided through a year-long residency program
and other means.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment, but Priority 3 is not
intended to address the training and qualifications of CTE teachers. We
also note that teacher licensing and certification are a State, not
Federal, responsibility.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter contended that local academic standards
should be aligned to the expectations of local colleges and
universities, and not just those of employers. This commenter
maintained that Priority 3 did not include postsecondary educational
institutions as partners in the projects promoted by the priority.
Discussion: We agree on the importance of aligning secondary and
postsecondary education, but we disagree that colleges and universities
are excluded from Priority 3. Subpart (a) refers generally to
``education providers'' so that it includes educational institutions at
all levels of education, including colleges and universities. Subpart
(b) focuses on pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials, the
definition of which includes baccalaureate degrees, and it specifically
mentions ``institutions of higher education.'' Subpart (c) focuses on
work-based learning experiences and does not specify the educational
level at which these experiences are offered so that this subpart is
broadly inclusive. Subparts (d), (e), and (f) focus on different
pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials, including
baccalaureate degrees, as well as, in the case of subpart (d), job-
ready skills that align with the skill needs of industries in the State
or regional economy involved.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters urged the Department to establish
requirements to prevent for-profit organizations with records of poor
performance from benefitting from Priority 3. They also recommended
requiring providers to achieve a minimum level of student outcomes as a
condition of their receipt of Federal funds. Another set of commenters
urged the Department to ensure that projects that respond to Priority 3
are high quality by examining measurable student outcomes, such as job
placement rates, salaries, and graduation rates.
Discussion: We note with respect to the first set of commenters'
concerns about for-profit organizations that such entities are not
eligible to receive assistance under many of the Department's
discretionary grant programs. We agree with the first set of commenters
that it is important to consider an applicant's prior performance
before making a grant award. We note that 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3)(ii)
requires us, prior to making a grant award, to consider information
concerning an applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous
award under any Department program. We also share both sets of
commenters' concerns about an entity's performance after receiving an
award. We note that 34 CFR 75.253 generally requires a grantee to make
substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the
project in order to receive continuation grant awards in multi-year
projects. A grantee is also, if the notice inviting applications
established performance measurement requirements, accountable for
meeting the performance targets in its approved application. We may
make an exception to this requirement only if the grantee has obtained
our approval of changes to the project that will enable the grantee to
achieve the goals and objectives of the project and meet the
performance targets of the project, if any, without changing the scope
or objectives of the project.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the priority's
reference to providers of self-guided learning and asked what standards
these providers would need to meet to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
not wasted. Another commenter expressed similar concerns and suggested
we define ``self-guided learning'' to clarify the term's meaning.
Discussion: We think the commenters' concerns can be addressed
effectively through the use of the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210,
particularly 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design), our
consideration of an applicant's prior performance under 34 CFR
75.217(d)(3)(ii), and the general requirement in 34 CFR 75.253 that
[[Page 9110]]
grantees make substantial progress in achieving the goals and
objectives of the project and their established performance targets in
order to receive continuation grant awards in multi-year projects. We
appreciate the second commenter's suggestion but think that the meaning
of ``self-guided learning'' is clear and does not require further
elaboration.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported Priority 3 and expressed the view
that education should prepare individuals to transition to work and
independent living, and noted that occupational therapy practitioners
can help individuals with disabilities attain life skills and navigate
daily routines.
Discussion: We appreciate the support of the commenter and
recognize that occupational therapy practitioners make important
contributions to helping individuals with disabilities live
independently.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended changes to the background
section for Priority 3 included in the NPP.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations we received on the
background section in the NPP, which explains our rationale for the
priority. However, as the background section is not part of the final
priority, we do not include a background discussion in the NFP.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters expressed their opposition to competitive
discretionary grants and indicated formula grants provide a more
reliable stream of funding to local school districts. Another commenter
expressed concern that language in the background statement about the
Department's intention to focus less on discrete funding streams and
more on innovative problem-solving would result in a reduction in
funding for programs that help individuals earn recognized
postsecondary credentials.
Discussion: Congress appropriates funding for the Department's
programs. Priority 3, as well as the other priorities, may be used in
competitions for discretionary (but not formula) grants for which
Congress has appropriated funding. The priorities themselves do not
affect the amount of funding appropriated by Congress for particular
programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter contended that the priorities do not address
the need to provide dedicated funding to ``school-to-work apprentice
programs.''
Discussion: In fiscal year 2017, Congress appropriated more than
$1.1 billion for the Perkins Act, which provides formula funding to
States, school districts, institutions of higher education, and others
to improve CTE programs. These funds are available to support ``school-
to-work apprentice programs.'' Additionally, Priority 3 focuses on
pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials, job skills, and
careers. Its use in other Department discretionary grant programs may
further increase the resources available for these purposes. However,
as noted above, we do not believe that these priorities affect the
funding Congress will appropriate for any specific program.
Changes: None.
Priority 4--Fostering Knowledge and Promoting the Development of Skills
That Prepare Students To Be Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive
Individuals and Citizens
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for Priority 4,
particularly the priority's focus on developing students' knowledge of
how government works and civic responsibilities. Additionally, multiple
commenters encouraged emphasis within the priority beyond those areas
specifically mentioned (i.e., civics, financial literacy, problem-
solving, and employability skills). Specifically, numerous commenters
encouraged adding an explicit focus within this priority on history and
geography education. In general, these commenters stated that it is
inappropriate to include a priority that promotes the development of
skills that prepare students to be informed, thoughtful, and productive
citizens without focusing on other educational areas, including
history, geography, and social studies. Lastly, other commenters
requested that we add various content or focus areas to the priority,
including: early learning; cultural diversity; partnerships; arts
education; social and emotional development; engagement and reasoned
argumentation; creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking; and
ethnic studies. One commenter suggested that the Department develop and
adopt specific standards describing the content and skills related to
the commenter's suggested addition to the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. We agree a
focus on skills that prepare students to be informed, thoughtful, and
productive individuals and citizens is vital to maintaining a strong
republic and to supporting the economic competitiveness of the United
States. We appreciate the commenters' concern that this priority does
not highlight all content areas equally. We believe that many of the
objectives outlined in Priority 4 and its subparts could be addressed
in one or more content areas that commenters mentioned, such as history
and geography. As an example, Priority 4(a) supports ``fostering
knowledge of the common rights and responsibilities of American
citizenship and civic participation,'' which has the potential to occur
through the content areas and approaches enumerated by commenters.
However, we believe that the priority, as written, provides maximum
flexibility for programs aiming to make use of these subparts. As such,
we do not think specific emphasis on the recommended content areas or
approaches is necessary. Furthermore, we believe that, in accordance
with the ESEA, the work of developing content standards is best left to
State and local governments.
With regard to ``early learning,'' please see the discussion on
this topic under the ``General'' response subheading. We have modified
some of the priorities, including Priority 4, by adding ``children and
students'' to make explicit that certain priorities may be used to
serve the early childhood population. For the ``cultural diversity''
comments, we believe reaching certain subgroups of students would in
some cases be allowable in these programs, especially in programs where
such a focus is included in authorizing statutes. With respect to
``partnerships,'' we agree that partnerships provide opportunities to
leverage resources to increase either a project's effectiveness or its
ability to reach more students. However, we do not believe it is
necessary to add a reference to ``partnerships'' in Priority 4 because
the priority does not preclude the use of partnerships. As for the
other various requested additions, we believe that many of the other
suggested additions represent allowable uses and do not require a
specific mention. We therefore decline to make these changes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that the language ``control
impulses'' used to describe student self-regulation under Priority
4(b)(v) is vague and could be unresponsive to students with diverse
learning needs. The commenter requested clarification on our intent in
using this phrasing as well as what implications this language may have
for social-emotional learning strategies for all students. The
commenter suggested that we clarify or delete the language.
[[Page 9111]]
Discussion: We agree that the phrase ``control impulses'' could be
amended to better target positive learning outcomes for all students.
We agree that clarifying the language would underscore our focus on
self-regulation to support the development of study skills and
executive function for students, including time management,
organization, and interpersonal communication.
Changes: We have removed the language ``control impulses and . .
.'' and replaced it with the phrase ``develop self-regulation in order
to . . .'' in subpart (b)(v) of Priority 4.
Comment: Some commenters supported the priority, but also called
for the Department to deemphasize the connection between educational
and economic outcomes outlined in this priority, including promoting
the global competitiveness of the United States.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding the
emphasis on the economic advantages associated with Priority 4.
However, the Department's mission is ``to promote student achievement
and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational
excellence and ensuring equal access,'' so we believe that the economic
advantages outlined in this priority are appropriate and in line with
the mission of the Department.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters requested that we require the application
of evidence-based strategies to activities under this priority.
Discussion: With regard to the inclusion of evidence-based
strategies within this priority, while we support the use of evidence
where possible, we do not believe it is appropriate for use in all
cases. Specifically, where there is not a sufficiently rigorous body of
evidence or where we seek to promote innovation for which there may not
yet be a body of evidence, it may not be appropriate to require
strategies to be evidence-based. In addition, evidence priorities in
EDGAR can be combined with these priorities in grant competitions.
Changes: None.
Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children,
Including Those With Disabilities and With Unique Gifts and Talents
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for this priority and
the focus on children and students with disabilities. One commenter
viewed the priority as a means to ensure extra funding and applauded
the discussion of supports for all children. Another commenter urged
the Department to continue to address the needs and outcomes as
discussed in the priority and to hold all children to the same rigorous
standards.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the
Secretary's priorities and the Department's commitment to ensuring that
all students, including students with disabilities, have equal access
to a high-quality education. We will note, however, that these
priorities do not impact funding levels set by Congress. The
Department, through these supplemental priorities and other
initiatives, intends to continue to focus on encouraging grantees to
take meaningful strides toward ensuring equal access to high-quality,
affordable, appropriately rigorous education for all students,
including students with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked how the Department intends to enforce
the priorities and ensure high-quality education for all children.
Discussion: The Secretary's priorities are intended to support and
strengthen the work that educators do every day by focusing
discretionary grants in a way that expands the implementation of, and
investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an
impact on improving student achievement and take strides toward
ensuring equal access to high-quality education. The Department
monitors all projects conducted under its priorities, and all grantees
must comply with any corrective action required on the basis of any
monitoring or other review of a grant awarded by the Department.
Grantees must also perform the work, and seek to achieve the outcomes,
described in the approved grant application (e.g., improved student
achievement, employment of individuals with disabilities, improved
teacher effectiveness). The Department uses various sources of
information from grantees, including performance and financial reports,
monitoring, and audits, to evaluate whether the goals of the grant
projects are accomplished.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter applauded the inclusion of children with
disabilities as a separate priority but stated that the failure of the
Federal government to meet its funding obligations under Part B of the
IDEA highlights the inadequacy of the discretionary grant programs to
meet the needs of students with disabilities.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern regarding funding
under Part B of the IDEA. The Secretary's priorities speak specifically
to discretionary grant activities, which would apply only to Part D of
the IDEA. The IDEA discretionary grant program--National Activities to
Improve Education of Children with Disabilities-IDEA Part D--is funded
separately from IDEA Part B, a formula grant program. The IDEA Part D
program funds State personnel development, technical assistance and
dissemination, personnel preparation, technology, media and educational
materials, and parent-training and information centers. In either case,
the Department maintains its commitment to ensure that children with
disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in a high-quality
education, are expected to perform at high levels, and, to the maximum
extent possible, are prepared to lead productive, independent lives.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter discussed the importance of serving students
with disabilities but expressed concern that the priorities do not
consider Tribes and Native American students. The commenter expressed
support for the inclusion of Tribes, consultation with Tribal council
members, and consideration of Native American students and asked that
Tribal leadership be added where States and localities are listed.
Discussion: We understand the commenter's concern about including
Tribes and Native American students in this priority. The Department is
committed to ensuring that students with disabilities, including Native
American students with disabilities, have equal access to high-quality
education, consistent with applicable requirements in Federal law.
Nothing in the proposed priorities precludes grantees from considering
and addressing Native American student needs. For this reason, we
decline to specifically highlight Tribes and Native American students
in this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter outlined challenges to State vocational
rehabilitation agencies related to the implementation of pre-employment
transition services to students with disabilities under the 15 percent
reserve requirements in section 113 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended by title IV of WIOA. The commenter suggested that the
Rehabilitation Services Administration revise the WIOA regulations to
allow States to use funds intended for pre-employment transition
services when the associated goods and services (such as room, board,
travel, and assistive technologies) are necessary for participation in
the
[[Page 9112]]
required pre-employment transition services activity.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concerns; however, the
Secretary's supplemental priorities and definitions are for
discretionary grant programs. Since the Secretary's priorities relate
to discretionary grants, not formula grant programs, any
recommendations for changes to the WIOA regulations are not applicable
to this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the use of
private school vouchers for students with disabilities. They expressed
concern that, under private school voucher programs, families might not
be informed that some provisions of the IDEA do not apply when parents
choose to enroll their children in private school. These commenters
also expressed concern that schools accepting vouchers are not
regulated in the same way as traditional public schools.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important for parents
to have accurate information about how the IDEA applies when they
select an educational program for their child. In all cases, it is
essential to empower parents of children with disabilities by offering
them the opportunity to enroll their children in the schools that they
believe work best for their child. The commenter is correct that the
rights of children with disabilities under the IDEA are changed if
those children are enrolled by their parents in private schools,
including private schools participating in voucher programs. However,
the IDEA sets forth rights afforded to parentally placed children with
disabilities. Under the IDEA, children with disabilities placed by
their parents in private schools participating in voucher programs
still must be included in the group of parentally placed children with
disabilities who are eligible for equitable services, including special
education and related services. The needs of these parentally placed
children with disabilities participating in voucher programs must be
considered through the consultation process required under the IDEA.
Further, the IDEA's child find requirements for identifying, locating,
and evaluating children suspected of having disabilities who need
special education and related services are fully applicable to these
children.
With regard to accountability, while the IDEA gives States and
school districts no regulatory authority over private schools, States
and school districts must implement all of the IDEA requirements
applicable to parentally placed private school children with
disabilities and to children with disabilities who are parentally
placed in private schools participating in voucher programs. The IDEA
Parent Training and Information Centers are available to provide
information and training to parents who have enrolled their children in
private schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested the Department add an additional
priority or subpart that references models and resources that are
currently available and familiar to the education community when
applying for discretionary grant funding. For example, the commenter
recommended that the Secretary give additional points when applicants
propose to implement models that meet the Institute of Education
Sciences' What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards.
Discussion: We appreciate the suggestion to focus on models that
meet WWC Standards. We agree on the importance of promoting these
approaches to increase educational success. However, there is nothing
in the priorities that precludes the Department from incentivizing
these approaches in the priorities, a flexibility established in EDGAR,
and we do not believe that a separate priority or subpart referencing
specific models and resources is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters encouraged the Department to include
the support and promotion of physical education and adapted physical
education, physical activity, and the physical health of children with
disabilities in future grant funding opportunities in order to meet the
outcomes listed within Priority 5. One commenter proposed adding health
and wellness to the outcomes within Priority 5.
Discussion: We agree on the importance of physical education and
physical activity to the overall well-being of students, including
those with disabilities. To this end, the Department can support
physical education and physical activity through its discretionary
grants, where it is an allowable expense and appropriate, and does not
need to add these activities to the priority to do so.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters encouraged the Department to support
the professional development of in- and pre-service physical education
teachers and school leaders as part of Priority 5.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments in support of training
opportunities to ensure that faculty, teachers, and school leaders are
prepared to support high-quality physical education and adaptive
physical education. We note that, taken together, the priorities are
comprehensive and address the need for high-quality preparation and
ongoing professional development for all educators and school leaders,
including physical education teachers.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested various changes to the
introductory language in subpart (a). A few commenters proposed
expanding the language to include ``high-quality instruction and
specialized instructional support services.'' Others commenters
suggested adding language to ensure that children are offered the
opportunity to meet challenging objectives. Another commenter
recommended adding language to require students to meet challenging
standards for the grade in which they are enrolled and that students
receive high-quality instruction and specialized services. One
commenter requested that we address the needs of special education
students targeted by bullying, harassment, and relational aggression.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations for
revisions to subpart (a). The Department reasserts its long standing
position that all students, including students with disabilities, must
be held to high expectations and rigorous standards. Many students with
disabilities can successfully learn grade-level content and make
significant academic progress when appropriate instruction, services,
and supports are provided, and every student should have the chance to
meet challenging objectives and achieve academic goals in an
educational environment that is safe and respectful of all viewpoints
and backgrounds. The language in subpart (a) is consistent with the
standard expressed in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1,
137 S.Ct. 988 (2017) (Endrew F.), the unanimous Supreme Court decision
holding ``that a child's educational program must be appropriately
ambitious in light of his circumstances.'' This standard, and
requirements expressed elsewhere in law and regulation, are still
operable, even if not explicitly restated in these priorities.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, we believe it is important to
align the language used to address students with disabilities with the
language in Priority
[[Page 9113]]
1(b)(ii), to allow for maximum flexibility in supporting this
population of learners through this priority.
Changes: We have defined the term ``children or students with
disabilities'' within this notice and have used the defined term
throughout Priority 5, where appropriate.
Comment: Commenters suggested specific additions to the list in
subpart (a)(i)-(iv). One commenter suggested adding speech and language
skills, noting that communication skills are essential in the
workplace. Another commenter suggested adding language to focus on
postsecondary education, competitive employment, and independent
living. The commenter also suggested we highlight the importance of
social-emotional learning in subpart (a)(iv).
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations for
revisions to subpart (a)(i)-(iv). We agree that subpart (a)(iii) should
be inclusive of postsecondary education, competitive integrated
employment, and independent living, in order to align with the goal of
subpart (a) to ensure students with disabilities can meet challenging
objectives. The other recommendations, though not explicitly mentioned,
would not necessarily be excluded from use by grantees.
Changes: We have added postsecondary education to the language in
subpart (a)(iii).
Comment: Some commenters recommended that the Department add
specific populations to the priority. One commenter suggested we add
``learning disabled adults'' to the priority. Another commenter
suggested the addition of homeless children and youth. One commenter
noted that English learners tend to be overrepresented in special
education and underrepresented in gifted education, and recommended a
focus on professional learning for educators and school leaders to
endure the needs of this population are adequately met. Another
commenter suggested the addition of English learners as a third target
population with unique needs, and a few commenters recommended the
priority be expanded to address high-needs students more broadly.
Discussion: The Department is committed to ensuring that all
students with disabilities, including students with disabilities who
are ``learning disabled adults,'' homeless children and youth, and
English learners, have equal access to high-quality educational
opportunities that lead to successful transitions to college and
careers. Through these priorities, the Department will continue to
maximize the availability of high-quality learning opportunities to
address the special education needs of all eligible children, students
and adults, including adults with learning disabilities, homeless
children and youth, and English learners.
Regarding the request to focus on professional learning to address
the needs of English learners, we note professional development and
preparation of teachers and school staff are addressed under Priorities
7 and 8. The term ``educators'' in these priorities encompasses all
educators, including those of students who are English learners.
Therefore, we do not believe additional language under this priority is
necessary. As for the request to add additional subgroups, including
English Learners, to this priority, we decline to make this change
since some programs or projects will allow a specific focus on one of
the populations suggested above, and others would not exclude these
populations from consideration, when such a focus aligns with the aims
of a particular discretionary grant program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted the need for students who are deaf or
have hearing loss to have access to appropriate supports and
accommodations and that such access was not sufficiently addressed in
the priorities.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree with the need to
ensure that students who are deaf or have hearing loss have accessible
books, instructional materials, and resources. We believe that subpart
(b) includes this population of students and explicitly calls for
ensuring that coursework, books, and other materials are accessible to
students who are children with disabilities and/or individuals with
disabilities under Section 504.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters supported the need to provide accessible
materials for students with disabilities, and stated that there is a
need to go beyond what is minimally required. These commenters
indicated that grant applicants should not receive a ``bonus'' for
complying with current requirements and regulations to serve students
with disabilities. They also noted that the Endrew F. ruling set the
standard that students with disabilities should have ``appropriately
ambitious'' goals, and that students need more than the minimal
requirement of access. The commenters suggested updating the priority
to recognize projects that go beyond minimum requirements.
Discussion: We appreciate these comments and agree that students
with disabilities need to be held to high standards and that access is
not always enough for full engagement with the general education
curriculum. We also agree that students with disabilities should have
``appropriately ambitious'' goals as indicated in subpart (a). We
specifically included language in subpart (b) to address accessible
materials to emphasize that in order to hold students to high
standards, regardless of their disability, they require meaningful
access to the same books and educational materials as their peers. Our
current discretionary grants programs are highly competitive and, as
such, applicants are expected to go beyond minimal requirements to
receive funding. The language in subpart 5(a) is consistent with the
standard expressed in Endrew F., the unanimous Supreme Court decision
holding ``that a child's educational program must be appropriately
ambitious in light of his circumstances.''
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested revising subpart (b) to
include technology since technology is now one of the primary vehicles
for delivering instruction. Other commenters suggested assessments
should be included as well because digital assessments need to be
accessible for students with disabilities and that the assessments
should meet nationally recognized standards for accessibility, such as
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0 AA). In addition,
several commenters suggested strengthening the requirements by
referencing the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the Communication Act,
and WCAG 2.0 AA.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments and agree that technology
should be included in the priority language as technology has become
one of the primary tools for delivering instruction. Indeed, Priority 6
incorporates technology in two different subparts as a way to increase
access. We agree that digital instructional materials, including
assessments, need to be accessible. We also agree that it may be
difficult to ensure compliance with accessibility requirements without
adherence to modern standards such as the WCAG 2.0 AA standard, which
includes criteria that provide comprehensive web accessibility to
individuals with disabilities--including those with visual, auditory,
physical, speech, cognitive, developmental, learning, and neurological
disabilities. However, we decline to list specific standards, as they
are updated over time. Project activities that are funded through
discretionary grants using this
[[Page 9114]]
priority must still be consistent with the requirements of the IDEA,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504, where
applicable.
Finally, we believe that the language of subpart (b) encompasses
accessible technology. Specifically, the text of subpart (b) indicates
that projects under this priority would ensure ``coursework, books, or
other materials are accessible to students who are children with
disabilities,'' where ``other materials'' encompasses technology.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that parents, families,
and family-serving organizations are not included in Priority 5. The
commenter noted the historical role of engaged families in ensuring a
free appropriate public education is available to all children with
disabilities, as required under the IDEA. The commenter also noted that
strong family-professional partnerships are among the most effective
strategies to improve educational outcomes for children with
disabilities; and how the Department's investment in parent training
and information centers (PTIs) and community parent resource centers
(CPRCs) has resulted in preparing many families to work with
professionals and advocate for their children.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that families are crucial
to ensuring that children with disabilities have the opportunity to
meet challenging objectives in appropriately ambitious educational
programs, as well as the importance of providing information and
training to all families. Through the funding and management of the
IDEA Part D Parent Information and Training Program, the Department has
ensured that families in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Pacific territories have access to the information and
training they need to advocate for their children. Engaging families in
their children's education, increasing parents' knowledge and ability
to advocate for their children, increasing parents' and professionals'
ability to work together, and involving family-serving organizations in
improvement efforts are vital strategies to strengthen the education of
children with disabilities. Through the notices inviting applications,
the Department has the discretion to specify strategies used to address
these priorities, and we intend to continue to promote strategies that
empower families and students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested modifying Priority 5(a) to include
``instructed on or taught to challenging academic standards for the
grade in which they are enrolled and receive high quality instruction
and specialized instructional supports services that are meaningful and
appropriately ambitious in light of each students circumstances.''
Discussion: We appreciate the comment, and we agree with the need
to ensure students with disabilities are instructed on challenging
academic content standards and receive high-quality instruction and
specialized instructional supports and services that are meaningful and
appropriately ambitious in light of each student's circumstances. We
note that the instructional program for students with disabilities is
individually determined and is within the purview of the child's
individualized education program team. The Department believes that
this priority addresses that students with disabilities are instructed
on or taught to challenging academic standards for the grade in which
they are enrolled and receive high-quality instruction and specialized
instructional supports services that are meaningful and appropriately
ambitious in light of each student's circumstances.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested grantees create programs that are
intentionally designed from the outset, so all learners, especially
high-needs students, have the greatest chance of being fully included;
accessing instruction, strategies, supports and materials; and
achieving the desired outcomes outlined by the Department.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment on the need to develop
accessible instruction, materials, and support, not only for students
with high needs, but all students. We appreciate the potential benefits
to developing accessible materials from the outset as compared with
``retrofitting'' materials to be accessible. We currently support some
projects that are taking this approach and believe this is included in
the language under Priority 5.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters indicated the need to make a more
explicit connection between the preparation and ongoing professional
development of teachers and school staff, including specialized
instructional support personnel, and meeting the unique needs of
children and students, especially those with disabilities and those
with unique gifts or talents within Priority 5.
Discussion: The Department agrees that high-quality personnel
preparation and ongoing professional development for teachers, school
leaders, and other school staff is critical in meeting the unique needs
of students and children, including those with disabilities and unique
gifts and talents. We note professional development and preparation of
teachers and school staff are addressed under Priorities 7 and 8. The
term ``educators'' in these priorities encompasses all educators,
including those of children who are students with disabilities. Nothing
in Priority 7 or 8 would preclude an applicant from focusing on
teachers of children who are students with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Commenters suggested that the Department allow for
professional development to help teachers and other school staff,
including specialized instructional support personnel, better meet the
needs of students with disabilities and those with unique gifts and
talents within Priority 5. The commenter also recommended expanding
Priority 8 to recognize the crucial role that school psychologists and
other specialized instructional support personnel play in providing
meaningful and ample support to teachers, principals, and other school
leaders in helping students reach their full potential and in school
improvement efforts.
Discussion: We appreciate these suggestions and agree that high-
quality personnel preparation and ongoing professional development for
all school staff, including teachers, principals and other school
leaders, and other school staff, including other specialized
instructional support personnel, plays an important role in providing
meaningful and ample support to teachers, principals, and other school
leaders in helping students reach their full potential and in school
improvement efforts. However, with respect to the requested expansion
of Priority 8, the term ``educators'' in subparts (b) and (d) includes
all staff that support students in schools, including, for example,
various specialized instructional support personnel.
Changes: None.
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed general support for subpart
(c). Many commenters shared research and their concerns that gifted and
talented students with high needs, including twice-exceptional students
(e.g., students gifted in math and who have dysgraphia) often do not
have access to the resources they need to reach their full potential.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' commitment
to this group of students and included this subpart under Priority 5
because we share this concern as well.
[[Page 9115]]
The Department will continue to support programs to address the unique
needs of this group of students.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for subpart (c) and
advocated for additional funding for this student group. One commenter
suggested that it would be more effective to direct funding toward
supporting students who have demonstrated mastery in content areas,
rather than focusing on closing the achievement gap. Some commenters
discussed the need for further research on this topic. One commenter
specifically requested additional research as it relates to effective
identification, assessment, and enrichment programs in rural
communities. Other commenters advocated for increased funding for
programs that serve this group, such as the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented Students Education Program.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to research
and programs for this student population, including in rural
communities. While the priorities and definitions in this document may
be used in future discretionary grant competitions, no funding is tied
to these final priorities. Appropriations for Federal programs are made
by Congress and are outside the scope of this discussion. We agree that
building further models of effectiveness are a crucial part of our
discretionary grant programs and look forward to working with grantees
to discover more of what works in these areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters suggested programs and methods to
adequately address subpart (c). These suggestions include, but are not
limited to: using differentiation strategies, educator access to
curricular resources and collaboration with resource specialists,
professional development geared toward gifted and talented students,
and the use of an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary model.
Discussion: We believe that our Nation's schools should develop
opportunities to meet the needs of gifted and talented students that
empower them to reach their full potential.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for legislation that would
mandate gifted education in public schools.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's commitment
to gifted students. However, legislative mandates are set by Congress
and are outside the scope of this discussion and this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended changes in the language of
subpart (c). One commenter felt this subpart lacks specificity, and
should explicitly discuss mentoring, Advanced Placement coursework, and
early college opportunities. The commenter also recommended combining
this subpart with Priorities 3 and 6. Another commenter recommended
focusing on students with high needs within the gifted and talented
population, by adding language from subpart (b) related to the
accessibility of materials in subpart (c).
Discussion: We appreciate these suggestions. With regard to the
level of specificity in subpart (c), the Department seeks to allow
grantees the flexibility to serve gifted students in ways that best
meet their unique needs. As such, we do not support listing examples of
specific types of services or curricula under this subpart. Regarding
combining this subpart with another priority, the Department believes
that the strong support we received from other commenters for including
this subpart justifies leaving it as a distinct subpart. Finally, we
agree that it is important to consider the unique needs of students
with high needs, and believe that the priority as written would not
preclude a program using this priority from focusing on the
accessibility of materials.
Changes: None.
Priority 6--Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM)
Education, With a Particular Focus on Computer Science
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for STEM education,
including computer science, elaborating that computer science enhances
students' ability to problem solve and think critically. One commenter
stated that it is extremely important to offer programs to communities
that could not normally fund STEM programs, and another supported
projects to support more women and girls in STEM as reflected in
subpart (d). Other commenters noted that computer science is one of the
STEM fields that has more job openings than graduates, and termed it
among the most important growth areas for new employment in the United
States. Several commenters expressed appreciation that the priority
addresses the needs of underrepresented students in STEM and that the
Department's focus on STEM education will allow school districts to
expand computer science and STEM offerings more quickly and with
greater quality so that every student can fully access the field to his
or her fullest potential and prosper in the 21st-century economy.
Another commenter applauded the Department's effort to increase the
number of educators adequately prepared to deliver rigorous instruction
in STEM and increase access for underrepresented students in STEM
courses. One commenter also noted the inclusion of subpart (l) to
support greater use of STEM and computer science resources by making
them available as open educational resources.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for STEM and the
inclusion of computer science. We believe our Nation's economic
competitiveness depends on our ability to improve and expand STEM
learning and engagement, and, thus, we must expand the capacity of our
elementary and secondary schools to provide all students, including
minorities, students in rural communities, women, and other
historically and traditionally underrepresented students in STEM
fields, with engaging and meaningful opportunities that develop
knowledge and competencies in STEM, both in and out of the classroom.
In order to do this, educators must be equipped to leverage new digital
technologies to enhance classroom instruction.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters provided suggestions to strengthen the
background section for the priority. One commenter requested amendments
to the background section to include reference to the IDEA, the
Communication Act, and WCAG. Another commenter stated that the
background section should state that in addition to making technology
accessible to students with disabilities, the technology should also be
made accessible to English learners.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the
background section included in the NPP, which explains our rationale
for this priority. We do not include background sections for priorities
in the NFP, nor are the background sections considered part of the
final priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response
to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: We have determined that our intent to allow programs
and grantees the flexibility to address one or more of the STEM
subjects, rather than all four, was not apparent. Therefore, we are
clarifying that program offices will have the flexibility to build
competitions that focus on one or more
[[Page 9116]]
STEM fields (e.g., just science, or science and technology).
Furthermore, we are clarifying that projects under Priority 6 should be
designed to improve student achievement or other educational outcomes,
and that discretionary grant competitions that use this priority could
focus solely on the root of the priority (i.e., projects designed to
increase educational opportunities by reducing academic or non-academic
barriers to economic mobility) or require that the proposed project
meet both the root and one or more of the subparts in Priority 6 (i.e.,
paragraphs (a) through (e)). This allows for maximum flexibility in
using these priorities within discretionary grant programs.
Changes: We revised the title of the priority, changing the word
``and'' to ``or.'' We have also revised the introductory language to be
clear that projects may (or may not) be required to address one or more
of subparts (a) through (e). In addition, we changed the word ``and''
to ``or'' within subpart (k) to specify that projects may address
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics.
Comment: Several commenters requested the addition of various
particular content areas within STEM, asserting that these other
content areas also aid in the development of problem-solving, critical
thinking, and analytical skills. Specifically, commenters variously
requested separate subparts within Priority 6 for areas including
statistics, geography, psychological science, chemistry, art, and
environmental education. One commenter requested adding a subpart
focused on engineering design and analysis skills in teacher training
and teacher professional development.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' requests to add separate
subparts to address various specific STEM content areas and support
teachers. With respect to the addition of separate subparts in specific
STEM and computer science areas, the priority as written does not
preclude grant applicants from proposing to focus on particular content
areas within STEM and computer science, including, for example,
statistics, geography (to the extent such a focus relates to STEM and
computer science), or chemistry. Further, subpart (a) of this priority
focuses exclusively on increasing the number of educators who are
equipped to teach STEM and computer science, and, similarly, grant
applicants could propose to focus on increasing the number of educators
equipped to teach a particular content area within STEM and computer
science, for example, engineering design and analysis skills. Thus, we
decline to add additional subparts to Priority 6 related to specific
content areas within STEM and computer science and rather allow maximum
flexibility for grant applicants to focus on the range of specific
content areas within STEM and computer science. Furthermore, we believe
the priority appropriately emphasizes the preparation necessary for
students to meet the current demands of the labor market and for
educators to effectively teach STEM subjects.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested various revisions to the
priority to highlight certain aspects of teaching and learning in STEM
and computer science. Specifically, some commenters requested that this
priority reference certain teaching strategies, such as online
learning, ``hands-on'' learning experiences, and experiential learning
to ensure access to and engagement from students. A few commenters
requested that the priority explicitly mention out-of-school (e.g.,
before school, after school, summer) settings as an opportunity to
engage students in STEM and computer science. A few commenters
requested that we include CTE in the title of the priority as well as
explicitly in subparts (a), (d), and (e). With respect to CTE, one
commenter explained that half of all STEM jobs are open to workers with
less than baccalaureate credentials, and that CTE should not be seen as
different or separate. Multiple commenters recommended that we delete
the reference in subpart (b) to ``proficient use of computer
applications'' as they believe it suggests that computer use is a
prerequisite for learning computer science.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' requests to highlight these
various important elements in the teaching and learning of STEM and
computer science for all students. With respect to specific learning
strategies, we prefer to allow grant applicants to choose from among
the numerous learning strategies and approaches currently available and
innovative ones that may be emerging in the teaching of STEM and
computer science. However, we note that subpart (b) specifically offers
``hands-on, inquiry-based learning'' as a viable option for supporting
student mastery of STEM and computer science prerequisites.
Furthermore, subpart (e) explicitly mentions online coursework as a way
to increase student access to STEM and computer science, and subpart
(i) focuses solely on technology to provide students access to
educational choice to which they otherwise might not have access.
Further, nothing in Priority 6 precludes STEM and computer science
teaching and learning during out-of-school time or that focuses on CTE.
Finally, with respect to the requested change in subpart (b), our
intent was not to suggest that computer use is a prerequisite for
learning computer science, but rather that understanding the state of
the art in commonly used computer applications or technologies better
positions learners to transition from consumers of technology to
developers of technology.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: We decided it was necessary to clarify that subparts
(a) and (g) focus on strategies that are evidence-based, in order to
achieve the goals of the subparts.
Changes: We added the term ``strategies'' to subpart (a) where
evidence was already referenced. Similarly, we changed the term
``areas'' to ``strategies'' in subpart (g).
Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority recognize the
critical and distinct role that principals and other school leaders
play by changing the reference to educators in subpart (a) to teachers,
principals, and other school leaders.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that principals and other
school leaders play integral roles in student success; however, our
intent in using the phrase ``educator'' is that it be inclusive of
teachers, principals, and other school leaders.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: We felt it was important to clarify that there are two
main components to subpart (b), such that a discretionary grant program
may decide to use them together or independent from one another.
Changes: In subpart (b) we removed the word ``and'' and replaced it
with the word ``or.''
Comment: None.
Discussion: We believe that the priorities should provide maximum
flexibility while accommodating the statutory requirements of
discretionary grant programs. Certain discretionary grant programs may
require strong evidence. To ensure that we can use Priority 6 and also
accommodate this requirement, we revised subpart (c) to allow for
application of the priority to grant programs that may require strong
evidence.
Changes: We have revised subpart (c) to specify that instructional
strategies may be supported by either strong
[[Page 9117]]
evidence, or strong or moderate evidence.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the priority explicitly
mention certain groups of students, including students with
disabilities, low-income students, Alaska Native students, students of
color, minority students, English learners, adults, gifted and talented
students, and students in urban settings. In requesting the addition of
and focus on a specific subgroup, multiple commenters raised concerns
that focusing on only one subgroup could prevent the Department from
meeting the needs of another. For example, one commenter feared that
focusing on low-income students may result in less attention to racial
and ethnic minorities. Some commenters requested further emphasis on
certain subgroups explicitly included in subpart (d), including females
and students in rural communities, by including them in subpart (e) as
well. Multiple commenters elaborated on the importance of providing
underserved students opportunities to learn STEM and computer science
content starting in pre-kindergarten and extending through third grade
in order to create early and sustained interest, confidence, and
competency in STEM and computer science. Finally, one commenter
requested that the priority address what the commenter perceives as
institutional barriers that may hinder undergraduates in
underrepresented groups from pursuing STEM and computer science
coursework.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' requests that STEM and
computer science education be inclusive of all students, and, in
particular, certain subgroups of students that may not otherwise have
access to this content. We agree that it is critical that traditionally
underserved students have access to STEM and computer science
coursework and educators who are well prepared to deliver such
coursework. However, we believe that the priority already includes
several of the student subgroups that the commenters requested we
include. Paragraph (d) of the priority addresses ``underrepresented
students,'' and the examples given are not exclusive. The term also
encompasses students of color, minority students, American Indian or
Alaska Native students, students in urban settings, and English
learners, among others.
With respect to adult students, the priority does not preclude
grant applicants who propose to focus on adults, and subpart (k)
specifically indicates support for programs that lead to recognized
postsecondary credentials through WIOA. The priority also explicitly
notes the need for support of women, as well as the need to support
students in rural communities, highlighting that student population in
both subparts (d) and (h). With respect to gifted and talented
students, we note that subpart (c) under Priority 5 focuses solely on
addressing the needs of gifted and talented students. Regarding the
concern that referencing one subgroup may detract from a focus on the
needs of other subgroups, we believe that the priorities should provide
maximum flexibility for grant applicants to address the needs of
students in their particular contexts. Most importantly, this priority
emphasizes the needs of underserved students.
We do recognize the need to emphasize students with disabilities
and students living in poverty in this priority, as these subgroups
experience particular challenges in accessing and participating in
rigorous computer science. These student subgroups contribute to
America's economic growth and prosperity and must be afforded the same
opportunities to learn about and engage in STEM and computer science in
the course of their education. Therefore, we have added to subpart (d)
an explicit mention of students with disabilities and low-income
students.
Changes: We have revised subpart (d) of Priority 6 to explicitly
include students with disabilities and low-income students in the list
of underrepresented students.
Comment: Some commenters requested that we revise subpart (d) to
explicitly include early learning, asserting that foundational learning
in STEM and computer science, as with all subjects, begins in the early
grades. Additional commenters emphasized the importance of early years
to a child's long-term success, and, thus, recommended that the
priorities incorporate a significant focus on early learning. These
commenters suggested we include in subpart (a) professional development
for educators on developmentally appropriate STEM and computer science
content, and another commenter recommended that we revise subpart (a)
to include supporting educators beginning with early childhood
educators.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations that the
priority emphasize early learning in this priority and across all
priorities. We agree that learning in STEM and computer science begins
in the early grades and there is a need for educators to engage
students in early grades in these content areas. However, nothing in
the priorities precludes grant applicants from focusing on children in
early learning settings and thus we decline to revise the text to
include explicit mention of early learning settings. In fact, use of
``students'' and ``education'' throughout the priorities is meant to be
inclusive of all students and settings, and the previously discussed
addition of ``children or students'' in several priorities is meant to
further clarify this inclusiveness. Unless explicitly stated otherwise,
the priority could be used in competitions that focus on early
learning. Furthermore, we would expect grant applicants to propose age-
appropriate interventions or activities for whatever age(s) they are
targeting. We also reflect our interest in, and the importance of,
early childhood education in Priority 9(d).
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested revisions to the priority to
further emphasize computer science throughout the priority, asserting
that adding computer science to STEM in several subparts of the
priority will result in a lack of focus on computer science in
competitive grant awards in favor of science and math. These commenters
further noted that the wording of several subparts within the priority
do not mirror the language of the title of the priority which calls for
``a particular focus on computer science'' and, thus, lessens the
emphasis on computer science. To address these concerns, these
commenters requested that the priority consistently state ``STEM with a
priority on computer science'' or ``STEM with a particular focus on
computer science.'' These commenters further suggested that a way to
emphasize computer science would be to add subpart (d) as an absolute
or competitive priority in all competitive grant programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' desire to emphasize
computer science and agree that the priorities should do so. However,
we believe that by including computer science as the sole focus of
subpart (d), the Department is clearly signaling the importance of
ensuring that all students have access to and can participate in
rigorous computer science coursework. In addition to subpart (d), grant
applicants may propose to focus solely on computer science in
responding to the other subparts within this priority. However, to
ensure maximum flexibility for grant applicants to focus on student
needs specific to their unique contexts, we decline to require that
they include computer science in their applications.
With respect to adding subpart (d) as an absolute or competitive
preference
[[Page 9118]]
priority across all discretionary grant programs, the Department has
discretion in choosing whether and how to use these priorities based on
their applicability to a given grant competition. Priorities are used
in grant competitions to guide applicants to propose projects that
respond to a specific need, such as expanding access to and
participation in rigorous computer science coursework.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department highlight
the importance of family involvement in Priority 6, suggesting that it
could be incorporated into subpart (f).
Discussion: We appreciate the comments and believe in the
importance of family involvement in students' education. Thus, while we
decline to modify subpart (f), we believe that it would not preclude
family involvement as a component of a grant application responding to
subpart (f).
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested that we place a greater
emphasis on STEM and computer science professional development for
educators generally and by, for example, revising subpart (f) to
include partnerships that provide teachers with access to high-quality
professional development in STEM and computer science teaching;
incorporating grade-appropriate engineering design challenges and
computational thinking into professional development; providing support
in teaching skills for STEM postsecondary faculty; adding appropriate
and evidence-based practices to support pre-service teachers in
accessing effective STEM teaching; explicitly adding modeling as an
approach to professional development; and making reference to cross-
content training to support staff who may transition from, for example,
teaching math to teaching computer science. Several commenters also
emphasized the importance of preparing STEM and computer science
educators to teach students with disabilities, asserting that students
with disabilities are significantly less likely to have access to high-
quality STEM and computer science courses and support to thrive in
these courses. One commenter stated that there should also be an
emphasis on increasing the number of educators who are knowledgeable
about serving English learners.
Discussion: We appreciate these comments related to professional
development, and also believe professional development is critical to
helping ensure the educator workforce is prepared to deliver high-
quality STEM and computer science coursework to all students across the
pre-kindergarten through postsecondary education spectrum, including
students with disabilities and English learners. However, we believe
that the priority sufficiently highlights the critical nature of
professional development and addresses the content of the requested
revisions. Specifically, regarding partnerships that may enhance
professional development for teachers on STEM and computer science,
subpart (a) would not preclude partnerships between, for example,
institutions of higher education and schools or LEAs to support high-
quality, evidence-based professional development. Additionally, such
partnerships would not be precluded under subpart (f) of Priority 8,
which explicitly addresses professional development for teachers of
STEM and computer science.
Further, Priority 6 accommodates professional development for
teachers of students of all ages and allows for grant applicants to
focus on particular content areas within STEM and computer science.
With respect to evidence-based practices, subpart (a) includes explicit
reference to evidence-based practices, and the Department can further
add evidence priorities consistent with EDGAR if we determine that they
are appropriate. While we appreciate the strategy of modeling in the
context of professional development, we decline to specify any single
approach to professional development and rather prefer to allow grant
applicants the discretion to determine which approach they believe will
help ensure effective professional development.
Regarding professional development for educators that specifically
targets the needs of students with disabilities or English learners, we
agree that teachers must have the skill set necessary to support the
learning needs of all students. Subpart (a) of Priority 6 would not
preclude grant applicants from proposing to focus specifically on
professional development to build educator capacity to address the
needs of students with disabilities or English learners. Finally,
subpart (a) specifically addresses the needs of teachers that may
transition from other fields to STEM and computer science.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters provided suggestions related to subpart
(i), which addresses the use of technology to provide access to
educational choice. Specifically, some commenters recommended moving
subpart (i) of Priority 6 to Priority 1 given the reference to choice,
while others recommended deleting subpart (i) altogether in opposition
to using the priorities to promote school choice.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions but disagree
with either moving or deleting subpart (i). The focus of the subpart is
to broaden access to STEM and computer science coursework and resources
through the use of technology (e.g., distance or online learning) to
students who may not otherwise have access to such coursework and
resources. According to the National Center for Women and Informational
Technology,\19\ less than one-quarter of students nationwide have
access to rigorous computer science courses. Thus, technology can help
ensure that all students and families who choose to pursue learning in
STEM and computer science can do so, regardless of their enrollment in
schools or districts that may not have such opportunities on-site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/12/prweb10219767.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters opposed the inclusion of computer science
in Priority 6. One commenter asserted that adding computer science will
diminish the focus on math; others similarly contended that focusing on
computer science will result in the exclusion of various equally
important high-demand fields of study, such as chemistry, physics, and
environmental science, and that the Department should not favor certain
subjects over others.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns but believe that
the priorities overall, and Priority 6 in particular, allow flexibility
for grant applicants to focus on areas of needs identified in their own
contexts. With regard to Priority 6, grant applicants have the
discretion to focus solely on any STEM and computer science content
area or areas working in concert with each other. As noted earlier, the
availability of jobs that require STEM and computer science skills
continues to grow and provides an opportunity for all students to
meaningfully contribute to America's domestic security and global
competitiveness. Emphasizing STEM and computer science can open doors
for students across the educational spectrum from pre-kindergarten
through postsecondary education. Students can pursue traditional or
alternate pathways to an education that will equip them with the skills
and abilities to be successful in a wide range of STEM and computer
science jobs.
Changes: None.
[[Page 9119]]
Comment: Multiple commenters requested that we clarify the
relationship between this priority and the Presidential Memorandum
directing the Secretary of Education to establish a goal of devoting at
least 200 million dollars in grant funds to promote STEM education
including computer science, as published in the Federal Register on
September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45417). These commenters recommended that we
reference this memorandum in the priority and clearly state that a
minimum of 200 million dollars will be committed to STEM and computer
science and that the Secretary will publically report progress toward
that goal.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for this
presidential memorandum and the focus of Priority 6. We decline to
specifically reference it in Priority 6 because doing so would have no
practical effect; however, we appreciate the commenters' request to
note the applicability of the memorandum to Priority 6.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended revisions to the definition
of ``computer science'' included in the priorities. Several commenters
recommended that the definition mirror the definition from the K-12
Computer Science Framework and the Computer Science Teachers
Association, which defines computer science as ``the study of computers
and algorithmic processes, including their principles, their hardware
and software designs, their implementation, and their impact on
society.'' One commenter stated that the definition of ``computer
science'' does not fully encompass the evolving field of computer
science and should include, for example, the relationship between
computing and mathematics, artificial intelligence, and applications of
computing across a broad range of disciplines and problems. Other
commenters variously contended that: Students need to understand
computation and computational thinking within disciplinary problem-
solving; the definition should be inclusive of emerging fields, such as
mechatronics and robotics; and that networking and network
administration should also be included in the definition.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions regarding the
definition of ``computer science.'' However, we believe that the
definition encompasses the concepts that commenters requested be
included and does not preclude emphasis on any of the concepts within
the field of computer science articulated in the comments, including by
the Computer Science Teachers Association.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department support
and enhance the State role in computer science education. The
commenters recommended that the Department consider the leadership role
that State agencies and governors may play to advance the goals of STEM
and computer science education. Three commenters specifically
recommended that programs or priorities recognize the State role
through fiduciary responsibilities and competitive sub-granting
authorities, and also that the priority recognize that a focus on
collaboration with States, LEAs, and local or national organizations
would create additional momentum for State planning in this area and
maximize participation for all school districts.
Discussion: We appreciate and agree with the commenters regarding
the roles and responsibilities that State agencies and governors play
to advance the goals of STEM and computer science education. Leaders in
States, districts, and schools must have the opportunity to do things
differently to meet the needs of their students. To this end, we
emphasize in these priorities eliminating unnecessary burdens placed on
grantees, particularly in Priority 2(c) that seeks to reduce compliance
burden within grantee's operations.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters believed this priority would be important
at the community college level. Community colleges play a critical role
in American higher education and provide fast-track training in
response to high-demand occupations. In addition, community colleges
can provide assistance to secondary schools by expanding access through
dual credit programs at an affordable cost. The commenters requested
subpart (f) of Priority 6, and applicable definitions, specifically
highlight community colleges and their value to society more directly.
Discussion: We appreciate the support from these commenters
regarding the invaluable role that community colleges play in the
Nation's higher education infrastructure. Nothing in the priorities
precludes community colleges from being included in grant competitions
to which these priorities may be attached.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended the inclusion of STEM in the
following Department grant programs: Education Innovation and Research;
Charter Schools Program; Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program,
Supporting Effective Educator Development; Promise Neighborhoods; and
Teacher Quality Partnership Program.
Discussion: While we acknowledge and agree in part with the
commenters' recommendation regarding the inclusion of STEM in other
Department grant programs, we do not agree with listing specific grant
programs in a manner that might limit use of the priority. This
priority may be used in a variety of discretionary grant programs as
applicable.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that soft skills that are
necessary for workforce success and a well-rounded curriculum that
includes courses in English and composition be included in the language
for the priority, in addition to other subjects and skills.
Discussion: The Department believes that so-called soft skills are
addressed in subpart (b). As written, this subpart permits flexibility
for educators to determine the types of building block skills and soft
skills they deem appropriate for their learning communities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify and
highlight the role of innovative STEM education providers, such as
science centers.
Discussion: We acknowledge the role that education providers such
as science centers play in providing programming and training in STEM
education, as well as providing a space for learners to develop their
interest and knowledge in STEM. We believe that these providers are
already included within the priority; specifically, subpart (f)
includes local businesses and not-for-profit organizations, and subpart
(j) includes other partners as entities that may facilitate access to
services.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended amending all priority
language that suggested that evidence-based activities, strategies, and
interventions were an option within the priority. The commenters
recommended that any discretionary grant program funded by the
Department must include evidence-based approaches.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendation and note
that we have placed an increasing emphasis on promoting evidence-based
practices through our grant competitions. We believe that encouraging
applicants to focus on proven strategies can only enhance the
[[Page 9120]]
quality of our competitions. However, the Department wants to maintain
discretion regarding evidence-based practices when applicable and can
attach evidence requirements to grant competitions as appropriate.
Changes: None.
Priority 7--Promoting Literacy
Comment: One commenter requested a separate priority focusing on
information literacy. Another commenter asked that ``information
literacy'' be highlighted in the priorities.
Discussion: We agree that information literacy is important.
However, we decline to write a priority that focuses solely on
information literacy, or include specific references to information
literacy within the priority. However, there is nothing in the priority
that would prevent applicants from proposing projects focusing on
information literacy, if appropriate for the specific competition.
Furthermore, we note that projects under Priority 7, or other
priorities such as Priority 4(a), may result in students achieving the
commenters' desired objectives.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed strong support for aligning
content areas, and integration of literacy instruction into those
content areas. Specifically, some commenters expressed their support
for integrating literacy instruction with social studies, math, and
science as part of this priority. Some commenters also expressed their
support for beginning this integration in elementary grades to build a
strong early foundation for literacy, and continuing it into secondary
education.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for aligning
content areas and integrating literacy instruction into these content
areas. It is important to note that the Department may use Priority 7
to support these kinds of efforts, and subpart (d) specifically
encourages the integration of literacy instruction into content-area
teaching. Additionally, the Department agrees that a focus on literacy
is important in early childhood and elementary grades to build a strong
foundation for learning and should be continued into secondary
education, as students must rely on these literacy skills to read texts
across a variety of subjects, such as math, science, and social
studies. As such, the Department did not place a particular emphasis on
literacy in elementary relative to secondary education, or vice versa.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for Priority 7. Some of
these commenters also requested additions to the priority.
Specifically, commenters requested the addition of: Literacy support
for incarcerated youth; theater education as a way to promote literacy;
a component for building vocabulary; and family literacy.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 7--
Promoting Literacy. We believe literacy is a foundation for learning
and is essential to students' ability to progress in school, pursue
higher education, and succeed in the workplace. In regard to
incarcerated youth, we believe this population is certainly in need of
special assistance and support, and, in fact, this group is included in
the Department's definition of ``children or students with high
needs.'' With regard to a literacy approach using theater education and
family literacy, and to the request that the priority reference
building vocabulary, the Department would note that while these
specific approaches or areas of focus may not have been mentioned in
the context of this priority, nothing in the priorities precludes
support for them.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the specific
literacy efforts already underway in States and communities across this
country.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for existing
literacy efforts. The Department does not endorse specific approaches,
products, or services. Moreover, these priorities do not authorize or
fund specific programs, and we do not include specific programs in the
text of the priorities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for family engagement
as part of Priority 7. One commenter, while supportive of family
engagement, suggested we add other ways families could be engaged and
supported at the school, district, State, and national level.
Discussion: We agree that family engagement is an important part of
Priority 7. Families play a critical role in supporting children's
literacy. When families and schools work together and support each
other in their respective roles, children have a more positive attitude
toward school and experience more school success. Specifically,
research has found that having parents reinforce specific literacy
skills is effective in improving children's literacy.\20\ We believe
that this priority, especially subpart (b), addresses the role that
families play in literacy and so we decline to make further changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Patall, E.A., Cooper, H., and Robinson, J.C. (2008). Parent
involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 78, 1039-1101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended broadening this priority to
include adult literacy. One commenter recommended including ABE and
developmental or remedial studies provided by community colleges.
Another commenter was particularly concerned with young parents who may
still be in school and may have their child in early childhood
education. A third commenter recommended adding data on the lack of
secondary and postsecondary educational attainment to the background
and a reference to the Integrated Education and Training model. And
another commenter recommended emphasizing the important role that
community colleges play in delivering ABE programs.
Discussion: It is important to note that the Department may use
Priority 7 to encourage these types of efforts, including the role of
community colleges in supporting adult learners, and subpart (e)
addresses adult literacy directly. We appreciate the feedback we
received on the background section included in the NPP, which explains
our rationale for this priority. We do not include background sections
for priorities in the NFP, nor are the background sections considered
part of the final priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes
in response to recommendations on the background sections.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters offered support for an emphasis on
early learning. Several commenters suggested adding an additional
subpart to Priority 7 for early reading and learning programs. A few
commenters recommended replacing the term ``education'' with ``early
learning and education'' throughout Priority 7.
Discussion: While early childhood education is not specifically
mentioned in Priority 7, the Department may use Priority 7 to encourage
these types of efforts. We believe that the term ``education'' is
inclusive of early learning and that priorities using the term
``education'' may be used in programs serving an early childhood
population, as appropriate. We have addressed the inclusion of this
population by revising the term ``students'' to ``children or
students'' when it aligns with the intent of the priority and its
subparts.
[[Page 9121]]
Changes: We revised subpart (c) to include the phrase ``children or
students.''
Comment: Several commenters provided feedback about specific
approaches, curricula, or frameworks to improve literacy instruction.
Commenters gave feedback supporting approaches and models such as:
Environmental and sustainability programs, quality out-of-school-time
(OST) programs, evidence-based strategies, UDL, and holistic
educational approaches.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to literacy
and various approaches to promoting it. While we support programs that
help educators deliver effective literacy instruction, we prefer to
allow maximum flexibility for applicants to choose the programs for
literacy intervention that best match their needs and contexts and meet
other program requirements, and we decline to endorse specific
approaches.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended making edits to the
background section. Specifically, one commenter recommended adding
information on 21st-century skills to the background section. Another
commenter recommended adding data on educational attainment for
communities of color and Native Americans to the background section,
while another commenter recommended adding information on educational
attainment for immigrants.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the
background section included in the NPP, which explains our rationale
for this priority. We do not include background sections for priorities
in the NFP, nor are the background sections considered part of the
final priorities. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response
to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters offered support for continued funding
for programs related to literacy. A few commenters offered support for
literacy funding focused in rural areas. One commenter expressed
support for funding book distribution programs and research on
pediatric early literacy programs. Another commenter recommended that
Priority 7 place more emphasis on literacy programs for English
learners.
Discussion: While the priorities and definitions in this document
may be used in future discretionary grant competitions, no funding is
tied to these final priorities. Appropriations for Federal programs are
made by Congress, and are outside the scope of this discussion. While
literacy programs for English learners could be funded using Priority
7, we decline to add an explicit reference to such programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter emphasized the difficulty of unaccompanied
students experiencing homelessness participating fully in family
engagement in literacy. The commenter suggested that mentoring and
tutoring programs for unaccompanied students be added to section 7(b),
and mentioned family engagement methods for these students.
Discussion: While we note that the priority as written can support
these types of activities, we appreciate the commenter's concern about
unaccompanied students experiencing homelessness and how they can
participate in family engagement in literacy. We agree that strategies
for promoting literacy should be supported when occurring outside of a
home environment, and we agree that this priority should be revised to
make this clear.
Changes: We have deleted the term ``at home'' from subpart (b).
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department expand this
priority to include writing. Specifically the commenter recommended
adding writing as a part of the discussion of literacy in the
background section of Priority 7, adding writing to subpart (d) of the
priority on integrating literacy instruction, and adding teaching of
writing as part of professional development in subpart (a) of the
priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter discussing how to integrate
writing into Priority 7. It is important to note that the Department
may use this priority to encourage the types of efforts described by
the commenter. In addition, the background section will not be edited
as it is not part of the NFP.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern with using third grade as
a benchmark for reading proficiency and, specifically, that students
not reading on grade level at third grade should not be retained.
Discussion: Grade retention within primary or secondary education
is not addressed within Priority 7 or any of the other priorities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended revisions to subpart (a).
One commenter recommended emphasizing early childhood. Another
commenter recommended focusing the priority on struggling readers. One
commenter recommended including ``educators, teachers, principals, and
other school leaders'' in subpart (c).
Discussion: The ``educators'' noted in Priority 7 can include
teachers, principals, and other school leaders and can include early
childhood educators as well. Similarly, we believe that the priority,
as written, encompasses the populations or approaches recommended by
commenters, as appropriate, including struggling readers and early
childhood education.
Changes: None.
Comment: Commenters also recommended including the definition of
``comprehensive literacy instruction'' of section 2221(b)(1) of the
ESEA in the NFP. Several commenters recommended changing the
introductory sentence of the priority to align with language in the
ESSA referencing the definition of ``comprehensive literacy
instruction.''
Discussion: The current text allows for a broad interpretation of
literacy, allowing individual discretionary grant programs and grantees
maximum flexibility in promoting literacy. Definitions included in
authorizing statutes for specific programs still apply.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for national nonprofit
organizations competing for funding.
Discussion: While the Department appreciates the commenter's
support for the many nonprofits that serve students throughout the
country, the NFP does not establish eligible entities for any of the
Department's competitive grant competitions. The purpose of the NFP is
to discuss supplemental priorities and definitions that may be used in
future grant competitions.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended adding a priority for
numeracy to Priority 7.
Discussion: We believe that numeracy is addressed generally by
Priority 6.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: We believe that the priorities should provide maximum
flexibility while accommodating the statutory requirements of
discretionary grant programs. Certain discretionary grant programs may
require strong evidence. To ensure that we can use Priority 7 and also
accommodate this requirement, we revised subpart (d) to allow for
application of the priority to grant programs that may require strong
evidence.
Changes: We have revised subpart (d) to specify that practices may
be supported by either strong evidence, or strong or moderate evidence.
[[Page 9122]]
Priority 8--Promoting Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed general support for Priority
8.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 8.
The Department believes that effective classroom instruction and school
leadership are essential for student success.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed strong support for Priority 8
and integrating its objectives into instruction in social studies,
civic education, and related content areas. One commenter suggested
integrating financial literacy and economics into increased
opportunities for high-quality preparation and professional development
for teachers and other educators.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for incorporating
the goals of Priority 8 into social studies and civic education.
Priority 8 could include many of the efforts suggested by commenters
and we decline to specifically name all possible activities.
Furthermore, the Department has expressed its strong support for
financial literacy, civics education, and related social studies in
Priority 4.
Changes: None.
Comment: Numerous commenters who work with positive behavioral
interventions and supports (PBIS) noted that Priorities 7, 8, and 10
are foundational for social growth of children and supported an
alignment and integration of content areas.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' support for
Priority 8 and aligning it with the other priorities. Priority 8 allows
for innovative strategies to provide students with access to effective
teachers or school leaders, and nothing in the priority precludes
grantees from aligning the priorities with the content areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested adding elements of teacher support
that contribute to building new pathways for effective educators to
assume leadership roles, including, for example, common planning time
and significant and sustainable compensation for teachers that serve in
leadership roles.
Discussion: We appreciate this commenter's suggestion and agree it
is important to articulate clearly strategies for facilitating the
development of effective educators into school leaders.
Changes: We have revised subpart (a) to include language allowing
the offer to educators of incentives, such as additional compensation
or planning time.
Comment: None.
Discussion: In order to ensure consistent application of the terms
``rural local educational agencies'' and ``high-poverty schools''
throughout the priorities, we believe it necessary to refer to
applicable definitions throughout the priorities.
Changes: We have added ``as defined in this notice'' to subparts
(c)(ii) and (c)(iii) of the priority.
Comment: One commenter suggested that, in addition to attracting
effective educators, discretionary grant program applicants should be
able to focus on retaining effective educators. Another commenter
suggested adding ``or preparing'' to subpart (e) (now subpart (f)) to
signal that prospective teachers may have already been recruited to the
teaching profession and now need to be adequately prepared.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestion, and agree
that retaining effective educators is a worthy endeavor to ensure all
students have access to effective educators.
Changes: We have added the phrases ``or retain'' and ``or
preparing'' to subparts (e) and (f), respectively.
Comment: Numerous commenters supported the priority as a means to
focus on both providing a good training foundation for teachers, and
the importance of sustained professional development to encourage
teacher effectiveness. One commenter suggested adding the word
``training'' to subpart (e), as training and professional development
are important for retaining qualified individuals who are recruited as
teachers and school leaders. A few commenters supported the recruitment
of a diverse body of teachers as part of this priority. One commenter
encouraged the inclusion of adult education in discretionary grants,
noting that professional development and leadership focused on adult
education are critical for the effectiveness of the adult education
teaching workforce.
Discussion: The priority seeks to support grant programs that help
teachers and school leaders acquire the tools they need to play a
crucial role in supporting high-need schools and to design a culture of
success for all children. Subparts (c) and (f) mention the use of
innovative strategies, high-quality preparation, and professional
development for teachers and educators, and the Department considers
teacher training to be addressed by professional development. We also
agree that in the recruitment of teachers, principals, and other school
leaders mentioned in subpart (e), it is important that these
individuals reflect the growing diversity of the student population. We
appreciate the mention of adult education, an important role of the
Department, and note that these activities would not be excluded under
this priority and that the Department currently administers
discretionary grant programs that support educator professional
development and CTE. The Department expresses its commitment to this
diversity among educators under subpart (b) of this priority, which
supports the recruitment of effective educators who increase diversity.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the
implementation of subpart (d) of this priority. One commenter opposed
the use of merit-based pay in developing or implementing innovative
staffing or compensation models to attract educators. Another commenter
opposed this subpart because, in the opinion of the commenter, the
concept of effectiveness has been used to punish teachers at the State
level. With regard to teacher compensation, some commenters also
encouraged fair pay or salary supplements for teachers in comparison to
other school district employees. A few commenters requested that the
subpart recognize the perspective and representation of teachers,
school leaders, and organizations that represent them.
Discussion: We appreciate this feedback on developing innovative
staffing or compensation models. However, we would note that this
priority does not provide a prescriptive approach to this objective,
and in fact encourages innovative solutions to attract effective
educators. While we do not define effectiveness under these priorities,
we firmly believe that both research and experience support the strong
link between teacher effectiveness and student academic
performance.\21\ We encourage State and local entities to identify
effective teachers as it relates to their specific student population
and to engage educators in decision-making processes, but decline to
include such requirements in the priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Teachers Matter: Understanding Teachers' Impact on Student
Achievement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2012. http://www.rand.org/pubs/corporate_pubs/CP693z1-2012-09.html; Rivkin, S.G.,
Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, T.A. ``Teachers, Schools, and Academic
Achievement.'' Econometrica 73, no. 2 (2005): 417-58; Nye, B.,
Konstantopoulos, S., and Hedges, L.V. ``How Large are Teacher
Effects?'' Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26, no. 3
(2004):237-257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters provided feedback about specific
[[Page 9123]]
approaches, curricula, or frameworks to promote effective instruction.
Commenters gave feedback supporting programs and models such as: Common
planning time, specific literacy programs, train-the-trainer model,
interprofessional education and interprofessional practice, cultural
competency training, data training, customized support, environmental
and sustainability programs, whole learner training, using evidence-
based strategies, involving community partners, strengthening content
knowledge, improving pedagogical techniques or strategies, and using
science centers.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to supporting
effective instruction and providing educators with high-quality
professional development. While the Department supports programs that
help retain educators and support them in reaching their full
potential, we do not endorse any specific program or approach for
professional development. In addition, we seek to maintain maximum
flexibility for our programs and grantees and decline to add the
specific strategies offered by commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters noted the importance of special
education providers and specialized instructional support personnel,
and expressed concern that they were not specifically mentioned in the
priority. Examples of such staff include, but are not limited to:
Social workers, psychologists, and counselors; school nurses;
occupational and physical therapists; speech language pathologists;
extended-day support staff; audiologists; and creative arts therapists.
Two commenters asked that we clarify if the term ``educator'' includes
general and special education teachers, specialized instructional
support personnel, and school leaders. Additionally, a number of
commenters noted that general educators should be equipped and receive
professional development to work effectively with students with
disabilities in inclusive classroom settings.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the numerous
types of personnel who serve our Nation's students, in particular those
who work with students with disabilities. The Department considers the
term ``educator'' to encompass educational support staff as well as
teachers, and this includes special educators. We do note, however,
that school leaders are addressed separately in these priorities.
Additionally, nothing in the priority would preclude a grantee from
targeting services to any or all of the personnel mentioned in these
comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that grants for innovative instruction
and learning methods should be available to educators in nonpublic
schools. Conversely, another commenter supported restricting subpart
(c) to public schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters for this feedback and note
that these priorities apply to the Department's discretionary grant
programs, and the eligible recipients of those grants are generally set
out by Congress and outlined in statute. We decline to impose further
restrictions on eligibility by restricting the use of any part of this
priority to a certain type of school. As such, eligible recipients of
grants and related services are based on the eligibility requirements
of the given program and its statute, and are not set forth in these
priorities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested developing a subpart under this
priority that would focus on directing resources for high-quality
instruction toward rural LEAs.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for rural LEAs,
and would direct the commenter to subpart (c)(ii), as well as the new
subpart (d)(ii) (discussed below), which encourage projects to promote
strategies to provide schools located in communities served by rural
LEAs with access to effective educators and school leaders.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about attracting,
retaining, training, and providing professional development for
teachers in a variety of areas. Commenters would like to see greater
emphasis on educator preparation programs at colleges and universities,
and ongoing professional development in teacher leader skills
development; increased personalization of professional development for
educators; and special attention to preparing educators who are able to
teach in early college or dual certification high-school/college
programs. Additionally, a number of commenters suggested one-year pre-
service residencies, alternative prep programs and added paths for
paraprofessionals to become educators.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to supporting
effective instruction and providing educators with high-quality
professional development and their concerns on this topic. We feel that
the particular concerns of these commenters are covered, broadly, by
subpart (c) of this priority, as strategies for increasing student
access to effective teachers. Additionally, nothing in the priority
would preclude a grantee from utilizing any or all of the training and
professional development approaches mentioned by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters requested that we separate Priority 8
into two priorities; specifically, one that focuses on teacher quality
and another that focuses on principals and school leadership quality.
Another commenter suggested that professional development focus on the
career continuum for educators.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' suggestion that we divide
this priority into two priorities; however, we believe that splitting
the language into two subparts would better address the necessary focus
on both groups while also recognizing that different strategies may be
necessary to support teachers than principals and other school leaders.
Nothing in this priority precludes the professional development from
focusing on continuums for educators.
Changes: We have revised subpart (c) and added a new subpart (d).
Subpart (c) is now focused on ``effective educators,'' with the term
``educators'' being inclusive of teachers as well as other school
personnel. The new subpart (d) focuses on ``effective principals or
other school leaders.'' Additionally, we revised subparts (c)(i) and
(d)(i) to clarify that each subpart should focus on schools served by
the project funded using either of these subparts, rather than schools
generally.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for preparation
involving teachers of all content areas, including those coming from
other career pathways, specialized instructional support personnel, and
related service providers.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for preparation
of all educators. Subpart (c) allows for flexibility in promoting
innovative strategies to increase students' access to effective
teachers and school leaders. Additionally, nothing in the priority
would preclude a grantee from providing teacher preparation programming
consistent with what is mentioned by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters promoted the importance of building
relationships with students and families as a means to improve student
outcomes. One commenter suggested adding an additional priority to
focus on
[[Page 9124]]
increased professional development to engage families in their child's
education.
Discussion: We agree that strong connections between schools,
families, and communities are important for creating a culture of
academic success. We address the importance of these connections under
Priority 9, subparts (b) and (e), which support effective family
engagement in their students' education, and partnerships with
community-based organizations, respectively.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested the term ``computer science''
be added to the STEM subjects listed in Priority 8(f) [now subpart
(g)].
Discussion: After review, computer science will be incorporated
into what is now subpart (g) to be consistent with language in Priority
6.
Changes: We have added computer science to the list of subjects in
final subpart (g).
Comment: One commenter requested the addition of language for an
additional population under Priority 8, subpart (c), to include schools
with high proportions of students identified as experiencing
homelessness. Another commenter requested that the needs of English
learners be addressed throughout Priority 8.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters support for both of these
student populations. It is important to note that nothing in the
priority would preclude an applicant from focusing its project's
services on either group. In addition, the inclusion of high-poverty
schools in updated subparts (c) and (d) may often also capture schools
with large populations of English learners or students experiencing
homelessness.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarity on how the Department will
define ``effectiveness'' in terms of the priority.
Discussion: The Department has decided not to define the term
``effectiveness'' in the context of these priorities in order to allow
grantees the flexibility necessary to implement their programs in a
manner that is appropriate for their students and communities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested that computer science be
added to final subpart (g) to mirror Priority 6 and emphasize the
importance of increasing the number of educators across elementary and
secondary education who can teach computer science.
Discussion: We appreciate these comments and agree that it is
critical to increase the number of educators equipped to teach computer
science. Many students, especially in rural areas, lack access to
computer science courses, and while online programs can help these
courses work at scale, it is essential to ensure well-prepared
educators are able to reach students in these subject areas nationwide.
Changes: We have added computer science to the list of subjects in
Priority 8(g).
Priority 9--Promoting Economic Opportunity
Comment: Multiple commenters offered their support for Priority 9
and its emphasis on reducing academic or non-academic barriers to
economic mobility and increasing educational opportunities. Some
commenters discussed what this priority might mean for the level of
resources able to support the work. Additionally, in their support for
this priority, multiple commenters appreciated that the priority
identified particular priority areas, such as family engagement,
students who are homeless, and the role of partnerships in supporting
students and families.
Discussion: We agree with commenters on the need to more
effectively use resources to support students (and their families) so
that they have all of the tools that they need to be successful in the
classroom and beyond, including by providing support related to both
academic and non-academic factors. This priority includes a subpart on
family engagement, which is inclusive of military families, and this
subpart is one of many ways in which the Supplemental Priorities can be
used to positively impact family engagement, including family literacy.
We also agree that it is important to focus on students whose
environments and other challenges make it more difficult for them to
complete an educational program. Lastly, we support community-based
organizations that can create strong partnerships with schools, LEAs,
or States to provide supports and services to students and families.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters, beyond indicating their support for
the inclusion of subpart (d) focused on kindergarten preparedness,
referenced the need for a stronger emphasis on early childhood
education. Commenters recommended amending the language of the subpart
to include specific reference to quality early childhood education,
particularly quality preschool.
Discussion: We appreciate the strong support of commenters for
subpart (d) on kindergarten preparedness. The goal of this subpart is
to promote kindergarten readiness, which can be achieved in multiple
ways, including by supporting families and communities to access
quality early childhood education. Thus, we have revised this subpart
to allow for maximum flexibility in helping ensure children enter
kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life.
Changes: We have revised subpart (d) by deleting, ``to help more
children obtain requisite knowledge and skills to be prepared
developmentally.''
Comment: Multiple commenters proposed a greater focus on non-
academic factors, like social-emotional skills, mental health, and
cultural factors. Others suggested ways students could benefit through
exposure to the arts.
Discussion: We agree that non-academic factors contribute to
academic success, and this priority would allow State and local
education leaders to more effectively use their resources to support
success in classrooms and beyond. Furthermore, we believe that Priority
4 specifically focuses on a number these non-academic factors,
identifying the development of positive personal relationships;
determination, perseverance, the ability to overcome obstacles; self-
esteem through perseverance and earned success; problem-solving skills;
and self-regulation. We do not believe additional language needs to be
included in the priority to specifically name the additional non-
academic factors proposed by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters referenced the importance of community
colleges in supporting the promotion of economic opportunity, and
wanted to ensure that references to institutions of higher education or
postsecondary education would be inclusive of community colleges.
Discussion: We agree that community colleges play a central role in
supporting students and their families; we do not believe the language
currently in Priority 9 that pertains to postsecondary education
excludes community colleges from consideration.
Changes: None.
Comment: A couple of commenters proposed edits or additional
language to the background section that accompanies the proposed
priority to emphasize different points, such as corporal punishment,
poverty, and diversity.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the
background section included in the NPP, which
[[Page 9125]]
explains our rationale for this proposed priority. We do not include
background sections for priorities in the NFP, nor are the background
sections considered part of the final priorities. Therefore, we are not
making any changes in response to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters recommended adding adult learners to
the priority, emphasizing the importance on focusing on adults to
ensure economic opportunity for all, including those adults with
dependents.
Discussion: While the focus of this priority is on promoting
economic opportunity for students and families, we do not believe the
intent of this priority is to exclude adult learners. We are revising
the language to make clear that adult learners may be a part of the
population served under this priority in order to promote economic
opportunity for students and families. We have also revised the
introductory language so that discretionary grant competitions that use
this priority could focus solely on the root of the priority (i.e.,
projects designed to increase educational opportunities by reducing
academic or non-academic barriers to economic mobility) or require that
the proposed project meet both the root and one or more of the subparts
in Priority 9 (i.e., subparts (a) through (e)). We believe this will
allow for maximum flexibility in using these priorities to address
child or adult populations within discretionary grant programs.
Changes: We have revised the introduction to the priority by
removing the term ``for children.'' We have also revised the
introductory language to be clear that projects may (or may not) be
required to address one or more of subparts (a) through (e). In
addition, we have revised subpart (a) by replacing the phrase ``parents
and children'' with the term ``individuals.''
Comment: A couple of commenters emphasized the importance of STEM
education and suggested that STEM can support the stated goal of
Priority 9 to promote economic opportunity.
Discussion: We agree that STEM education is important and that our
Nation's economic competitiveness depends on our ability to improve and
expand STEM learning and engagement and have indicated this focus
through Priority 6. As such, we do not believe an additional reference
to STEM is needed within Priority 9.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asserted that partnerships with community-
based organizations constitute a viable and strong approach to
supporting students and families, and requested that we emphasize
community-based partnerships and community-based organizations within
the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree with the importance
of community-based organizations in supporting students and families.
Changes: We have edited subpart (e) to allow for maximum
flexibility in the types of partnerships with community-based
organizations that could be addressed under this subpart.
Comment: One commenter proposed that we add a subpart to the
priority focused on equity in school funding.
Discussion: We believe that this priority is meant to provide
flexibility to State and local education leaders to determine how to
best use all resources to support students and their families. As such,
we do not believe an additional subpart is necessary regarding the
allocation and use of funds at the State and local levels.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters proposed edits to subpart (c) of the
priority, with the proposed edits focused on specific populations such
as students with disabilities, as well as ensuring rigor in the
pathways to a regular high school diploma or recognized postsecondary
credentials.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to recognize that some
students face challenges that make it more difficult for them to
complete an educational program. We appreciate the commenters' emphasis
on the quality of the alternative paths and ensuring that there are
multiple paths to a regular high school diploma or postsecondary
credentials, especially for students with disabilities. However, we do
not believe that revisions to the priority are necessary to allow for
particular ways to offer economic opportunity because the existing
language offers the flexibility to State and local education leaders to
determine the appropriate paths for the students and families they
serve and how to best ensure that student needs are protected.
Moreover, the language of subpart (c) references to the defined term of
``regular high school diploma,'' as defined in section 8101(43) of the
ESEA, requiring compliance with this defined term.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter raised concerns that this priority could be
used to require a particular curriculum.
Discussion: This priority, along with the other priorities, does
not require nor endorse any particular curriculum, program, or
intervention. Furthermore, under the Department of Education
Organization Act, the Secretary is not authorized to exercise any
direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, or program of
instruction at any school or institution of higher education (see 20
U.S.C. 3403).
Changes: None.
Priority 10--Encouraging Freedom of Speech and Civil Interactions in a
Safe Educational Environment
Comment: Many commenters expressed general support for Priority 10.
Some of these commenters also requested additions to the priority,
while supporting it generally. Specifically, several commenters
suggested adding language to support the connection between civics
education, social studies, and positive and safe educational
environments.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Priority 10.
With regard to civics education and social studies, the Department
agrees that these content areas are important and may have positive
impacts on students and school environments. We note that the
Department gives significant attention to civics and related social
studies in Priority 4. Accordingly, we do not think such a change to
Priority 10 is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for Priority 10 but
called for greater alignment and integration of Priority 10 with the
other priorities.
Discussion: We agree that activities to promote improved school
climate and safer and more respectful interactions in a positive and
safe educational environment can be enhanced by alignment and
integration with activities addressed in other of the Secretary's
priorities. These priorities give States and LEAs, as well as
individual schools, the flexibility to tailor and implement programs
and policies that best reflect their needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters recommended changes to Priority 10.
For example, commenters requested a greater emphasis on the following:
Certain approaches to implementing school disciplinary policies; early
learning; using evidence and strategically measuring outcomes; bullying
prevention; preventing discrimination against students of all genders;
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students; students with
disabilities; students of color; inclusive school environments;
prevention of cyberbullying; usage of school-based health and wellness
programs and PBIS; prevention of expulsions and suspensions; and the
promotion of teacher safety. One
[[Page 9126]]
commenter suggested addressing not only victims of bullying, violence,
and disruptive behaviors, but those students engaged as well.
Additionally, a few commenters requested elaboration on the meaning
of some terms associated with Priority 10. Specifically, some
commenters requested that the Department articulate the systemic and
societal aspects of bullying and one commenter expressed concern that
not clarifying ``effective strategies'' could lead to disparities in
discipline practices and loss of social-emotional supports for students
with high needs. A few commenters suggested adding additional
statistics, the role of educators, and usage of disciplinary measures
to the background section.
Discussion: We recognize that school leaders, teachers, and
professors must ensure that schools and institutions of higher
education are safe for students to learn. As a way to ensure such an
environment, all of the strategies listed above could be proposed by
grant applicants. In order to provide maximum flexibility for
applicants to identify strategies that address their contexts and needs
and ensure a safe environment that supports learning, minimizes
disruptions, and increases respect for differing perspectives, we
decline to specify strategies in Priority 10. With regard to defining
terms associated with Priority 10, the Department believes that
discretionary grant programs should be provided with sufficient
flexibility in adapting their efforts around this priority to the
populations they serve, and, therefore, we are not proposing any
additional definitions under this priority.
Additionally we acknowledge the commenter's suggestion to add
statistics as well as the role of educators and usage of disciplinary
measures to the background section. We also understand, as commenters
suggested, that these policies can impact different types of learners
and different subgroups in important ways. We remind commenters that
all grant programs carried out using these priorities must be done so
in accordance with existing State and Federal laws. In addition, while
many of the principles outlined above are important, we decline to
limit the flexibility of grantees to meet local and individual needs.
Moreover, as the background section is not part of the final
priorities; we do not think it is necessary to make the requested
changes.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters provided feedback about specific
approaches, curricula, or frameworks to improve school climate and
create more positive and safe educational environments. Commenters gave
feedback supporting approaches and models, such as: Bullying
prevention, school safety, PBIS, multi-tiered systems of support
(MTSS), Title IV-A, the Be a Friend First program, service year
programs, social-emotional learning, restorative justice and discipline
programs, promoting inclusive and diverse school environments, family
and parent involvement, interactive engagement, promoting inclusion,
nonpunitive discipline methods, and supportive school disciplinary
policies.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' commitment to the goals
of Priority 10, and various approaches to promoting it. While we
support programs that help advance many of these goals, we do not
endorse any specific approach or program, and applicants are free to
propose projects aligning with many of these goals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter opposed the Secretary's priorities,
including Priority 10. The commenter opposed subpart (c) [now subpart
(a)] in particular, stating the Department is manufacturing a crisis
around free speech in educational institutions. Another commenter
expressed support for the proposed Priority 10 area of protecting free
speech, but requested the wording be changed to focus on ``educated''
free speech. Another commenter added that the Department should focus
on institutions of higher education in its efforts to protect free
speech, while another suggested more narrowly focusing on the open
discussion of diverse viewpoints. One commenter also raised concerns
around the cost of security associated with protecting free speech, and
another recommended that the Department make clear that in promoting
free speech, it is not supporting speech that contributes to a hostile
or bullying environment.
Discussion: We appreciate these contributions to the public debate
about free speech at educational institutions. The challenges to free
speech on college campuses are particularly acute where students
wishing to speak freely have been prevented from doing so due to speech
codes, which are all too common among the Nation's postsecondary
institutions. Violence has arisen in response to peaceful speech.
Topics such as the cost of protecting fundamental rights including free
speech, the value of listening to diverse viewpoints, the academic
freedom debate over which perspectives are academically reasonable
among educated persons, the difference between promoting free speech
and promoting the content of particular speech, the difference between
speech and conduct, and the importance of free speech for children as
well as adults are all topics on which applicants may choose to develop
projects under this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested separating the issues of
elementary and secondary school safety and college climate into two
different priorities.
Discussion: We believe that the priority and its subparts, as
written, allow the necessary flexibility for grantees to address safety
and climate in both elementary and secondary school and college
environments. Because programs may choose a specific subpart of the
priority to use in a competition, and therefore could focus only on
elementary and secondary school safety or on college climate, there
would be no practical impact in creating separate priorities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters provided feedback regarding various
types of school discipline, including aversive and exclusionary
discipline (i.e., suspension, expulsion, restraint and seclusion),
``zero tolerance'' policies and discipline involving law enforcement.
Some commenters provided data regarding the use of these discipline
tactics on different student groups, particularly minorities and
students with disabilities, and expressed concern about the
disciplinary strategies used on young children. Multiple commenters
recommended that the Department should instead focus on approaches or
programs that are evidence-based and on disciplinary strategies, such
as PBIS, MTSS, restorative practices, trauma informed care, conflict
management, fully integrated learning supports, crisis prevention, and
de-escalation.
Discussion: We appreciate and share the commenters' commitment to
improving school climate and eliminating bullying, harassment, and
discrimination. We believe that creating positive and safe learning
environments can only occur when the diverse needs of all students are
considered. Although we support strategies that advance these goals, we
do not endorse any specific approach or program. The priority also
would not prevent applicants from proposing projects that use
strategies such as those suggested by the commenters.
Changes: We have revised what is now subpart (b) to specify that
the positive and safe learning environments
[[Page 9127]]
under this priority must support the needs of all students.
Comment: One commenter requested various wording changes to the
title of the priority as well as a revision to the text of subpart (b)
to clarify the intent of this priority. Specifically, the commenter
requested that the title of the priority clearly state the intent of
encouraging free speech and civil interactions in a safe learning
environment and repeated this suggestion in the text of subpart (b).
Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree in the importance
of clearly articulating the intent of this priority. We have revised
the title and final subpart (c) for clarity.
Changes: We have focused the title of this priority on freedom of
speech and respectful interactions in a safe educational environment.
We also removed reference to ``enhance the learning environment'' in
subpart (c) as it was redundant with the language at the start of this
subpart. Finally, we reordered this priority.
Priority 11--Ensuring That Service Members, Veterans, and Their
Families Have Access to High-Quality Educational Options
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for Priority 11 and
the prioritization of supporting military- or veteran-connected
students and adults and programs within this priority, and emphasizing
a focus on service members, veterans, and their families throughout the
priorities. Additionally, in their support for the priority, multiple
commenters encouraged particular emphasis within the priority.
Specifically, multiple commenters emphasized the role of community-
based partnerships in providing educational choices. One commenter
encouraged considering access to high-quality educational opportunities
and support for educators to ensure the needs of military- or veteran-
connected students are met. Another commenter emphasized the role of
libraries in supporting military- or veteran-connected students.
Discussion: We agree a focus on the needs of military- or veteran-
connected students is important, including access to adult education
programs as well as other postsecondary credentials, including degrees
and certificate opportunities. We also believe that several types of
organizations, including community-based partnerships and libraries,
can play integral roles in projects to ensure that service members,
veterans, and their families have access to high-quality educational
choices. Thus, we do not believe that additional emphasis within the
priority is necessary. We also note that the proposed definition of
``military- or veteran-connected student'' includes individuals in
early learning and development programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed their opposition to the
educational choice aspect of the priority. A few commenters raised
concerns about the Military Interstate Children's Compact and how
educational choice, as defined in this notice, may not provide families
with equitable opportunities. Other commenters expressed concern over
the perception that educational choice does not align with the ESEA and
that the priority may divert funds from public schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding
educational choice as it relates to military- or veteran-connected
students. We believe in providing families with access to quality
educational options, noting that families should be free to choose the
school that is right for their child. We are committed to improving
access to high-quality preschool, elementary, and postsecondary
educational options, offering meaningful choice to families, and
providing families with the information and tools they need to make
these important decisions.
We support the Military Interstate Children's Compact and recognize
that the compact only applies to public schools. However, this priority
applies to the academic needs of all family members of service members
or veterans. Recent research has shown that a solid proportion of
military parents have had experiences outside of traditional public
schools, with a solid proportion of military parents reporting
experiences at charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling for
at least one-half of the school year.\22\ It is important to note that
the Military Interstate Children's Compact is not a Federal mandate or
program but, rather, a voluntary State initiative. Thus, while the
Department will continue to spotlight and support the Military
Interstate Children's Compact, it would not be within the Department's
jurisdiction to recommend the inclusion of private schools in the
compact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ DiPerna, P., Burke, L.M., and Ryland, A. (2017). Surveying
the Military Family: What America's Servicemembers, Veterans, and
Their Spouses Think About K-12 Education and the Profession.
Available at: www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/EdChoice%20military%20survey.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding concerns as to what this priority would mean for public
schools, we believe that equal access and opportunity--being for
choice--is not incompatible with supporting public schools. To avoid
confusion expressed by some commenters that the title of this priority
intended to limit this priority to projects addressing ``educational
choice'', as defined in this notice, we are revising the title of the
priority.
Moreover, this priority will be used in programs that complement
the program statute, rather than replacing statutory requirements under
Federal law and must be aligned with the language of a given program,
where applicable.
Changes: We have revised the title of this priority to clarify that
the title is not meant to reference the definition of ``educational
choice'' included this NFP.
Comment: A few commenters emphasized the use of data in conjunction
with this priority, specifically transparency of information at the
State and institution of higher education levels. Specifically, one
commenter encouraged the Department to use this priority to support
States in meeting the requirements of the ESEA to disaggregate
performance data for military- or veteran-connected students. Another
commenter encouraged transparency by institutions of higher education
regarding which credits the institution will accept for military
training and experience.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' interest in making data
available and transparent for military- or veteran-connected students
and agree that making data transparent is critical in equipping
families with the information they need to make the best educational
choices. We believe that this priority, as written, could be used to
support projects that disaggregate performance data, as high-quality
data are necessary for understanding and appropriately addressing the
academic needs of military- or veteran-connected students. Regarding
transparency in higher education, each institution of higher education
determines if it will accept certain credits and how they will be
applied. Accrediting bodies require accredited institutions to have a
publicly accessible transfer of credit policy, and it is not within our
authority to require specific transfer credit policies; however, we
believe that making such information as transparent as possible can
support students in making informed choices about their educational
options.
Changes: None.
[[Page 9128]]
Comment: A few commenters raised concerns about the applicability
of GI Bill benefits to this priority as well as some of the other
priorities, especially those that provide noncredit certificates or
part-time enrollment.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns about the
applicability of GI Bill benefits to this priority as well as others.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for the
administration of education and training programs for veterans and
service persons, reservists, and dependents of veterans under Chapters
30, 32, 35, and 36 of title 38, and Chapter 1606 of title 10, United
States Code; thus, we cannot make the type of changes as requested by
the commenters. We believe that the priority helps ensure service
members, veterans, and their families are well-informed educational
consumers when utilizing their GI Bill benefits.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters proposed specific edits to the priority
language itself. These edits include recommendations to explicitly note
educational supports, postsecondary education, workforce training, and
implementation of the IDEA as ways to address the academic needs of
military- or veteran-connected students.
Discussion: We believe that the priority, as written, offers
maximum flexibility to address the academic needs of this population,
and would not exclude the recommendations offered by commenters when
such strategies are aligned with the objectives of a particular
discretionary grant program.
Changes: None.
Definitions
Comment: One commenter appreciated the comprehensive definition of
``educational choice'' provided. Another commenter supported the
definition of ``educational choice'' but noted concerns to address when
finalizing the definition, including ensuring parents understand what
rights under the law may be impacted by moving their child out of the
public school system; that schools benefiting from public funds should
maintain protections, accountability, and rights for children and
students, including compliance with the IDEA, Section 504, ADA, and
other civil rights laws; that funding follows the student; and that
privacy protections under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and Family Rights and Education
Privacy Act (FERPA) are upheld. One commenter recommended that the
Department add language to the definition of ``educational choice'' to
recognize that educational choice means quality choices. One commenter
suggested revising the definition of ``children or students with high
needs'' to include chronically absent students and students with
multiple disciplinary incidents.
Discussion: We appreciate the support and suggestions regarding the
definition of ``educational choice.'' We agree that the choices offered
to children and students must be high-quality choices. We also agree
that all schools should be transparent regarding, and accountable for,
results. However, schools governed under different structures will do
this differently. All schools--and any activities funded by a program
using this definition--must still comply with all applicable Federal,
State, and local laws. Furthermore, use of this definition does not
change current State obligations to adhere to reporting requirements
established under the ESEA and the IDEA related to accountability in
accordance with Federal law and their State plans, to the extent those
requirements apply to a school a family chooses for their child
pursuant to a program that uses this definition of ``educational
choice.'' We decline to make a change to the definition of ``children
or students with high needs'' to include chronically absent students
and students with multiple disciplinary incidents, but those students
would not necessarily be excluded from projects using this definition.
Changes: We have revised the term ``personalized path for
learning'' within the definition of ``educational choice'' to read ``a
high-quality personalized path for learning.''
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the definition of
``educational choice'' emphasizes use of public funds for private
education.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern, but disagree
that the definition of ``educational choice'' indicates a preference
for private schools. Indeed, the first option provided under the
definition indicates a wide variety of public school options, including
traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet
schools, public online education providers, and other public education
providers.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department add a
definition for ``intermediary'' not-for-profit organizations that
support community-based partnerships, and support their role by adding
specific references to the defined term in priorities 2, 6, and 8.
Discussion: We believe that the role of partnerships is highlighted
and addressed under priorities 2, 6, and 9. Since intermediary
organizations, as defined by the commenter, would not be precluded from
specific subparts of these priorities as currently written, we do not
believe it is necessary for the Department to define the term.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: In reviewing the definition of ``educational choice,''
we felt it was important to allow maximum flexibility for discretionary
grant programs to include evidence.
Changes: We have revised the term ``and'' to ``or'' in the
reference to evidence-based approaches in the definition of
``educational choice.''
Comment: None.
Discussion: In reviewing the language across the priorities, we
felt it would be helpful to define the terms ``children or students
with disabilities'', ``disconnected youth'' and ``English learners'' to
clarify the meaning of the terms and to provide consistency across
Department programs that use these definitions within the discretionary
grant process.
Changes: We have added ``Children or students with disabilities'',
``Disconnected youth'', and ``English learners'' to the Final
Definitions section of this notice.
Final Priorities
The Secretary establishes the following priorities for use in any
Department discretionary grant program.
Priority 1--Empowering Families and Individuals To Choose a High-
Quality Education That Meets Their Unique Needs
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Increasing the proportion of students with access to
educational choice (as defined in this notice).
(b) Increasing access to educational choice (as defined in this
notice) for one or more of the following groups of children or
students:
(i) Children or students in communities served by rural local
educational agencies (as defined in this notice).
(ii) Children or students with disabilities (as defined in this
notice).
(iii) English learners (as defined in this notice).
(iv) Students in schools identified for comprehensive or targeted
support and improvement in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii),
(c)(4)(D), or
[[Page 9129]]
(d)(2)(C)-(D) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended.
(v) Students who are living in poverty (as defined under section
1113(a)(5)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended) and are served by high-poverty schools (as defined in this
notice), or are low-income individuals (as defined under section 312(g)
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).
(vi) Disconnected youth (as defined in this notice).
(vii) Migratory children.
(viii) Low-skilled adults.
(ix) Students who are Indians, as defined in section 6151 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(x) Military- or veteran-connected students (as defined in this
notice).
(xi) Children or students who are academically far below grade
level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school
diploma, or who are at risk of not graduating with a regular high
school diploma on time.
(xii) Children or students who are homeless.
(xiii) Children or students who are or have been incarcerated.
(xiv) Children or students who are or were previously in foster
care.
(xv) Children in early learning settings.
(c) Developing or increasing access to evidence-based (as defined
in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) innovative models of educational choice (as
defined in this notice).
Priority 2--Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education
With an Increased Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing
Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Implementing strategies that ensure education funds are spent
in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness,
including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
(b) Supporting innovative strategies or research that have the
potential to lead to significant and wide-reaching improvements in the
delivery of educational services or other significant and tangible
educational benefits to students, educators, or other Department
stakeholders.
(c) Reducing compliance burden within the grantee's operations
(including on subgrantees or other partners working to achieve grant
objectives or being served by the grant) in a manner that decreases
paperwork or staff time spent on administrative functions, or other
measurable ways that help education providers to save money, benefit
more children or students, or improve results.
(d) Demonstrating innovative paths to improved outcomes by
applicants that meet the requirements in 34 CFR 75.225(a)(1)(i) and
(ii).
(e) Strengthening development capabilities to increase private
support for institutions.
(f) Demonstrating matching support for proposed projects:
(i) 10% of the total amount of the grant.
(ii) 50% of the total amount of the grant.
(iii) 100% of the total amount of the grant.
(g) Partnering with one or multiple local or State entities, such
as schools, local educational agencies or State educational agencies,
businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or institutions of higher
education, to help meet the goals of the project.
Priority 3--Fostering Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining
Knowledge and Skills
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Improving collaboration between education providers and
employers to ensure student learning objectives are aligned with the
skills or knowledge required for employment in in-demand industry
sectors or occupations (as defined in section 3(23) of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014).
(b) Developing or implementing pathways to recognized postsecondary
credentials (as defined in section 3(52) of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA)) focused on career and technical
skills that align with in-demand industry sectors or occupations (as
defined in section 3(23) of WIOA). Students may obtain such credentials
through a wide variety of education providers, such as: Institutions of
higher education eligible for Federal student financial aid programs,
nontraditional education providers (e.g., apprenticeship programs or
computer coding boot camps), and providers of self-guided learning.
(c) Providing work-based learning experiences (such as internships,
apprenticeships, and fellowships) that align with in-demand industry
sectors or occupations (as defined in section 3(23) of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014).
(d) Creating or expanding innovative paths to a recognized
postsecondary credential or obtainment of job-ready skills that align
with in-demand industry sectors or occupation (as defined in section
3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA)),
such as through career pathways (as defined in section 3(7) of WIOA).
Such credentials may be offered to students through a wide variety of
education providers, such as providers eligible for Federal student
financial aid programs, nontraditional education providers, and
providers of self-guided learning.
(e) Creating or expanding opportunities for individuals to obtain
recognized postsecondary credentials through the demonstration of prior
knowledge and skills, such as competency-based learning. Such
credentials may include an industry-recognized certificate or
certification, a certificate of completion of an apprenticeship, a
license recognized by the State involved or Federal Government, or an
associate or baccalaureate degree.
(f) Creating or expanding opportunities for students to obtain
recognized postsecondary credentials in science, technology,
engineering, mathematics, or computer science (as defined in this
notice).
Priority 4--Fostering Knowledge and Promoting the Development of Skills
That Prepare Students To Be Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive
Individuals and Citizens
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Fostering knowledge of the common rights and responsibilities
of American citizenship and civic participation, such as through civics
education consistent with section 203(12) of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act.
(b) Supporting projects likely to improve student academic
performance and better prepare students for employment, responsible
citizenship, and fulfilling lives, including by preparing children or
students to do one or more of the following:
(i) Develop positive personal relationships with others.
(ii) Develop determination, perseverance, and the ability to
overcome obstacles.
(iii) Develop self-esteem through perseverance and earned success.
(iv) Develop problem-solving skills.
(v) Develop self-regulation in order to work toward long-term
goals.
[[Page 9130]]
(c) Supporting instruction in time management, job seeking,
personal organization, public and interpersonal communication, or other
practical skills needed for successful career outcomes.
(d) Supporting instruction in personal financial literacy,
knowledge of markets and economics, knowledge of higher education
financing and repayment (e.g., college savings and student loans), or
other skills aimed at building personal financial understanding and
responsibility.
Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children With
Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Ensuring children or students with disabilities (as defined in
this notice) are offered the opportunity to meet challenging objectives
and receive educational programs that are both meaningful and
appropriately ambitious in light of each child's or student's
circumstances by improving one or more of the following:
(i) Academic outcomes.
(ii) Functional outcomes.
(iii) Development of skills leading to postsecondary education,
competitive integrated employment, or independent living.
(iv) Social or emotional development.
(b) Ensuring coursework, books, or other materials are accessible
to children or students with disabilities (as defined in this notice).
(c) Developing opportunities for students who are gifted and
talented (as defined in section 8101(27) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended), particularly students
with high needs (as defined in this notice) who may not be served by
traditional gifted and talented programs, so that they can reach their
full potential, such as by providing a greater number of gifted and
talented students with access to challenging coursework or other
materials.
Priority 6--Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM)
Education, With a Particular Focus on Computer Science
Projects designed to improve student achievement or other
educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: Science,
technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this
notice). These projects may be required to address one or more of the
following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number of educators adequately prepared to
deliver rigorous instruction in STEM fields, including computer science
(as defined in this notice), through recruitment, evidence-based (as
defined in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) professional development strategies
for current STEM educators, or evidence-based retraining strategies for
current educators seeking to transition from other subjects to STEM
fields.
(b) Supporting student mastery of key prerequisites (e.g., Algebra
I) to ensure success in all STEM fields, including computer science
(notwithstanding the definition in this notice); exposing children or
students to building-block skills (such as critical thinking and
problem-solving, gained through hands-on, inquiry-based learning); or
supporting the development of proficiency in the use of computer
applications necessary to transition from a user of technologies,
particularly computer technologies, to a developer of them.
(c) Identifying and implementing instructional strategies in STEM
fields, including computer science, that are supported by either--
(i) Strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1); or
(ii) Strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined in 34 CFR
77.1).
(d) Expanding access to and participation in rigorous computer
science (as defined in this notice) coursework for traditionally
underrepresented students such as racial or ethnic minorities, women,
students in communities served by rural local educational agencies (as
defined in this notice), children or students with disabilities (as
defined in this notice), or low-income individuals (as defined under
section 312(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).
(e) Increasing access to STEM coursework, including computer
science (as defined in this notice), and hands-on learning
opportunities, such as through expanded course offerings, dual-
enrollment, high-quality online coursework, or other innovative
delivery mechanisms.
(f) Creating or expanding partnerships between schools, local
educational agencies, State educational agencies, businesses, not-for-
profit organizations, or institutions of higher education to give
students access to internships, apprenticeships, or other work-based
learning experiences in STEM fields, including computer science (as
defined in this notice).
(g) Other evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA)
and innovative approaches to expanding access to high-quality STEM
education, including computer science.
(h) Utilizing technology for educational purposes in communities
served by rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice)
or other areas identified as lacking sufficient access to such tools
and resources.
(i) Utilizing technology to provide access to educational choice
(as defined in this notice).
(j) Working with schools, municipal libraries, or other partners to
provide new and accessible methods of accessing digital learning
resources, such as by digitizing books or expanding access to such
resources to a greater number of children or students.
(k) Supporting programs that lead to recognized postsecondary
credentials (as defined in section 3(52) of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA)) or skills that align with the skill needs
of industries in the State or regional economy involved for careers in
STEM fields, including computer science.
(l) Making coursework, books, or other materials available as open
educational resources or taking other steps so that such materials may
be inexpensively and widely used.
Priority 7--Promoting Literacy
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Promoting literacy interventions supported by strong evidence
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), including by supporting educators with the
knowledge, skills, professional development (as defined in section
8101(42) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended), or materials necessary to promote such literacy
interventions.
(b) Providing families with evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR
77.1 or the ESEA) strategies for promoting literacy. This may include
providing families with access to books or other physical or digital
materials or content about how to support their child's reading
development, or providing family literacy activities (as defined in
section 203(9) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act).
(c) Facilitating the accurate and timely use of data by educators
to improve reading instruction and make informed decisions about how to
help children or students build literacy skills while protecting
student and family privacy.
(d) Integrating literacy instruction into content-area teaching
using practices supported by either--
(i) Strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1); or
[[Page 9131]]
(ii) Strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined in 34 CFR
77.1).
(e) Supporting the development of literacy skills to meet the
employment and independent living needs of adults using practices
supported by strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
Priority 8--Promoting Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Developing new career pathways for effective educators to
assume leadership roles while maintaining instructional
responsibilities and direct interaction with students, and offering
these educators incentives, such as additional compensation or planning
time.
(b) Supporting the recruitment or retention of educators who are
effective and increase diversity (including, but not limited to, racial
and ethnic diversity).
(c) Promoting innovative strategies to increase the number of
students who have access to effective educators in one or more of the
following:
(i) Schools that will be served by the project.
(ii) Schools that are located in communities served by rural local
educational agencies (as defined in this notice); or
(iii) High-poverty schools (as defined in this notice).
(d) Promoting innovative strategies to increase the number of
students who have access to effective principals or other school
leaders in one or more of the following:
(i) Schools that will be served by the project.
(ii) Schools that are located in communities served by rural local
educational agencies (as defined in this notice); or
(iii) High-poverty schools (as defined in this notice).
(e) Developing or implementing innovative staffing or compensation
models to attract or retain effective educators.
(f) Recruiting or preparing promising students and qualified
individuals from other fields to become teachers, principals, or other
school leaders, such as mid-career professionals from other
occupations, former military personnel, or recent graduates of
institutions of higher education with records of academic distinction
who demonstrate potential to become effective teachers, principals, or
other school leaders.
(g) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of,
or professional development for, teachers or other educators of
science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined
in this notice).
Priority 9--Promoting Economic Opportunity
Projects designed to increase educational opportunities by reducing
academic or nonacademic barriers to economic mobility. These projects
may be required to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Aligning Federal, State, or local funding streams to promote
economic mobility of low-income individuals (as defined under section
312(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).
(b) Building greater and more effective family engagement in the
education of their children or students.
(c) Creating or supporting alternative paths to a regular high
school diploma (as defined in section 8101(43) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended) or recognized
postsecondary credentials (as defined in section 3(52) of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act) for students whose environments outside
of school, disengagement with a traditional curriculum, homelessness,
or other challenges make it more difficult for them to complete an
educational program.
(d) Increasing the number of children who enter kindergarten ready
to succeed in school and in life by supporting families and
communities.
(e) Creating or expanding partnerships with community-based
organizations to provide supports and services to students and
families.
Priority 10--Protecting Freedom of Speech and Encouraging Respectful
Interactions in a Safe Educational Environment
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Protecting free speech in order to allow for the discussion of
diverse ideas or viewpoints.
(b) Creating positive and safe learning environments that support
the needs of all students, including by providing school personnel with
effective strategies.
(c) Developing positive learning environments that promote strong
relationships among students and school personnel to help prevent
bullying, violence, and disruptive actions that diminish the
opportunity for each student to receive a high-quality education.
Priority 11--Ensuring That Service Members, Veterans, and Their
Families Have Access to High-Quality Educational Options
Projects that are designed to address the academic needs of
military- or veteran-connected students (as defined in this notice).
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Definitions
The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any
Department discretionary grant program that uses one or more of these
priorities.
Children or students with disabilities means children with
disabilities as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) or individuals defined as having a disability under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) (or children or
students who are eligible under both laws).
Children or students with high needs means children or students at
risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance
or support, such as children and students who are living in poverty,
who are English learners (as defined in this notice), who are
academically far below grade level, who have left school before
receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not
graduating with a regular high school diploma on time, who are
homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, or who
are
[[Page 9132]]
children or students with disabilities (as defined in this notice).
Computer science means the study of computers and algorithmic
processes and includes the study of computing principles and theories,
computational thinking, computer hardware, software design, coding,
analytics, and computer applications.
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a
tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and
tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of
computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing,
securing, and using digital information.
In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science
emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving
to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply
computation in our digital world.
Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday
activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word
processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers
in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.
Disconnected youth means individuals between the ages of 14 and 24,
who are both low-income and either homeless, in foster care, involved
in the juvenile justice system, unemployed and not enrolled in an
educational institution, or at risk of dropping out of an educational
institution.
Educational choice means the opportunity for a child or student (or
a family member on their behalf) to create a high-quality personalized
path for learning that is consistent with applicable Federal, State,
and local laws; is in an educational setting that best meets the
child's or student's needs; and, where possible, incorporates evidence-
based activities, strategies, or interventions. Opportunities made
available to a student through a grant program are those that
supplement what is provided by a child's or student's geographically
assigned school or the institution in which he or she is currently
enrolled and may include one or more of the options listed below:
(1) Public educational programs or courses including those offered
by traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet
schools, public online education providers, or other public education
providers.
(2) Private or home-based educational programs or courses including
those offered by private schools, private online providers, private
tutoring providers, community or faith-based organizations, or other
private education providers.
(3) Internships, apprenticeships, or other programs offering access
to learning in the workplace.
(4) Part-time coursework or career preparation, offered by a public
or private provider in person or through the internet or another form
of distance learning, that serves as a supplement to full-time
enrollment at an educational institution, as a stand-alone program
leading to a credential, or as a supplement to education received in a
homeschool setting.
(5) Dual or concurrent enrollment programs or early college high
schools (as defined in section 8101(15) and (17) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended), or other programs that
enable secondary school students to begin earning credit toward a
postsecondary degree or credential prior to high school graduation.
(6) Access to services or programs for aspiring or current
postsecondary students not offered by the institution in which they are
currently enrolled to support retention and graduation.
(7) Other educational services including credit-recovery,
accelerated learning, or tutoring.
English learners means individuals who are English learners as
defined in section 8101(20) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended, or individuals who are English language
learners as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act.
High-poverty school means a school in which at least 50 percent of
students are from low-income families as determined using one of the
measures of poverty specified under section 1113(a)(5) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. For middle
and high schools, eligibility may be calculated on the basis of
comparable data from feeder schools. Eligibility as a high-poverty
school under this definition is determined on the basis of the most
currently available data.
Military- or veteran-connected student means one or more of the
following:
(a) A child participating in an early learning and development
program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student
enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education
who has a parent or guardian who is a member of the uniformed services
(as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101, in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or Public Health Service) or is a veteran of the
uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C.
3311).
(b) A student who is a member of the uniformed services, a veteran
of the uniformed services, or the spouse of a service member or
veteran.
(c) A child participating in an early learning and development
program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student
enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education
who has a parent or guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services
(as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101).
Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency
that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA)
program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized
under Title V, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as amended. Eligible applicants may determine whether a
particular district is eligible for these programs by referring to
information on the Department's website at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.
Notes: This notice does not preclude us from proposing
additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which
we choose to use one or more of these priorities and definitions, we
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
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,
[[Page 9133]]
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 regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject
to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the
Department proposes for notice and comment, or otherwise promulgates,
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and
that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
deregulatory actions. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2017, any new
incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset
by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions.
Although this regulatory action is a significant regulatory action, the
requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply because this
regulatory action is a ``transfer rule'' not covered by the Executive
order.
We have also reviewed this proposed 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 and definitions only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits will justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the
approach that will 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 will not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated
with this regulatory action are those resulting from regulatory
requirements and those we have determined are necessary for
administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The final priorities and definitions would impose minimal costs on
entities that would receive assistance through the Department's
discretionary grant programs. Additionally, the benefits of this
regulatory action outweigh any associated costs because it would result
in the Department's discretionary grant programs encouraging the
submission of a greater number of high-quality applications and
supporting activities that reflect the Administration's educational
priorities.
Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant
program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on
applicants by the final priorities are limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program
that is using one or more of the final priorities in its competition.
Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with
program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for
any eligible applicants, including small entities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: For these reasons as
well, the Secretary certifies that the final priorities and definitions
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Intergovernmental Review: Some of the programs affected by the
final priorities and definitions are 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 these programs.
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 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: February 27, 2018.
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2018-04291 Filed 2-27-18; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P