[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78486-78511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31189]
[[Page 78485]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 /
Notices
[[Page 78486]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-OS-2010-0011]
RIN 1894-AA00
Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for
discretionary grant programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education announces priorities and
definitions to be used for any appropriate discretionary grant program
in fiscal year (FY) 2011 and future years. We take this action to focus
Federal financial assistance on expanding the number of Department
programs and projects that support activities in areas of greatest
educational need. We are establishing these priorities on a Department-
wide basis. This action permits the Department to use, as appropriate
for particular discretionary grant programs, one or more of these
priorities in any discretionary grant competition. We also announce
definitions of key terms used in these priorities.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities and definitions are effective
January 14, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W311, Washington, DC 20202-
5910. Telephone: (202) 205-3010 or by e-mail at: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The President has set a clear goal for our education
system: By 2020, the United States will once again lead the world in
the proportion of citizens holding college degrees or other
postsecondary credentials. To support the national effort to meet this
goal, the Secretary has outlined an ambitious, comprehensive education
agenda that includes early learning programs that help ensure that
children are ready to succeed in school, elementary and secondary
schools that keep children on track to graduate from high school with
the knowledge and skills needed for success in college and careers, and
a higher education system that gives every individual the opportunity
to attend and graduate from a postsecondary program. To ensure that the
Department's discretionary grant programs effectively spur innovation,
promote the development and implementation of effective and sustainable
practices, and support adoption and implementation of necessary
reforms, the Secretary announces priorities in three key areas:
advancing key cradle-to-career educational reforms, addressing the
needs of student subgroups, and building capacity for systemic
continuous improvement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reminder of Accountability Requirements: We remind potential
applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant
competition, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the Secretary may consider
the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous
award, such as the applicant's use of funds and its compliance with
grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the
applicant failed to submit a performance report or submitted a
report of unacceptable quality.
Under 34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary may impose special
conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially
stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial
or other management system that does not meet the standards in 34
CFR part 74 or 80, as applicable; has not fulfilled the conditions
of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary may consider,
under 34 CFR 75.253, the extent to which a grantee has made
``substantial progress toward meeting the objectives in its approved
application.'' This consideration includes the review of a grantee's
progress in meeting the targets and projected outcomes in its
approved application, and whether the grantee has expended funds in
a manner that is consistent with its approved application and
budget. In making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also
requires various assurances and, in making a continuation award,
considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with its
current assurances, including those under applicable Federal civil
rights laws and the regulations in 34 CFR parts 100 through 110 that
prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal
financial assistance from the Department of Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474.
We published a notice of proposed priorities and definitions (NPP)
for the Department in the Federal Register on August 5, 2010 (75 FR
47284). That notice contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priorities and definitions. The Department
has made several significant changes from the NPP. We explain these
changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in
this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP,
approximately 150 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities
and definitions. We discuss substantive issues that pertain to all of
the priorities generally under a ``General Comments'' section. We
discuss substantive issues that are specific to a particular priority
under the title of the priority to which those issues pertain.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or
comments that are outside of the scope of the proposed priorities and
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 Comments
Comment: We received a number of comments that appeared to reflect
that commenters may have misunderstood the purpose and intended use of
these priorities. One commenter stated that it was unclear how the
priorities would ``interact'' with current and future discretionary
grant programs. Another commenter asked whether the Department intended
for these priorities to supersede authorizing language that establishes
the purpose, eligibility, and use of funds that Congress typically
includes in legislation. Some commenters asked whether the
discretionary grant programs funded under Part D of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) would be superseded by the
priorities and argued that the IDEA Part D programs should remain as
separate discretionary grant programs to ensure that the unique needs
of students with disabilities are met. Other commenters asked how the
Department would select the programs that would be subject to these
priorities.
Discussion: We want to be clear that the focus of any discretionary
grant program is established by its authorizing legislation. Congress,
through its actions, determines how funds are to be used, and the
Department develops application notices and awards grants in a manner
consistent with the authorizing statute and Congressional intent.
Within the parameters of the authorizing statute, the Department often
has flexibility in shaping the uses of funds for a specific
discretionary grant program or in targeting funds for specific entities
or needs and may, and often does, exercise that discretion by choosing
to issue regulations for an individual program. The Department also has
the flexibility under its general rulemaking authority to establish
more general priorities that could apply to a number of different
programs, and the Department has chosen to take that path with the
establishment of these priorities. In any given discretionary program,
the Department may decide to include one or more of these priorities in
a notice inviting applications for a grant competition, but only if
doing so is consistent with the program statute and applicable
regulations. When a priority includes several priority areas, the
Department may choose to include all of the priority areas or select
those that are most appropriate and
[[Page 78487]]
applicable, consistent with the program statute and applicable
regulations. For example, Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning
Outcomes) includes the following five priority areas: (a) Physical
well-being and motor development; (b) social-emotional development; (c)
language and literacy development; (d) cognition and general knowledge,
including early numeracy and literacy development; and (e) cognition
and general knowledge, including numeracy and early scientific
development. The Department could select all or some of the priority
areas (a) through (e) to include in a given notice, assuming that doing
so would be consistent with the program statute and applicable
regulations.
These priorities will not supersede the discretionary grant
programs authorized under Part D of the IDEA. Rather, in administering
competitions for particular discretionary grant programs, including
those authorized under Part D of the IDEA (e.g., teacher preparation
programs, technical assistance programs), the Department may use one or
more of these priorities to focus the competition on a particular area
consistent with the overall intent and the applicable statutory
parameters of the program. The Department will select the programs that
will use these priorities based on this framework.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification regarding how
the Department decides whether to designate a priority as an absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational priority.
Discussion: Under the Department's regulations (34 CFR 75.105), the
Department has the authority to select the programs that would be
subject to these priorities and to designate each priority as an
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority, consistent
with the authorizing statute that establishes the program. The
Department considers the relative importance, appropriateness, and
significance of a priority in determining whether to consider only
applications that meet the priority (i.e., an absolute priority); to
award additional points to an application meeting the priority or to
select an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (i.e., a competitive
preference priority); or to encourage applications that address the
priority, but to give no preference to applications that do so (i.e.,
an invitational priority).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that issuing these
priorities as final would preempt the opportunity for the public to
comment on how the priorities will be used in particular programs and
urged the Department to clarify whether there will be opportunities for
the public to comment on how the priorities will be used on a program-
by-program basis. Several commenters expressed concern that the
priorities appear to effectively create and implement education policy
outside of the legislative process and without the involvement of
stakeholders and elected officials. One commenter recommended that
there be a more complete and open review of the proposed priorities and
that Congressional hearings be held to review the notice before it is
finalized; absent such hearings, the commenter recommended that the
Department provide Congressional committees with periodic reports or
appear at oversight hearings to review the impact of these priorities
and definitions on education.
Discussion: As stated in the NPP, the purpose of establishing these
priorities is to permit the Department to use, as appropriate for
particular discretionary grant programs, one or more of these
priorities in any discretionary grant competition. Establishing these
final priorities will permit the Department to include one or more of
them in a notice inviting applications without having to go through a
public notice-and-comment process each time the Department wishes to
use one or more of these priorities in a discretionary grant program.
This action, therefore, generally will allow the Department to conduct
grant competitions and make awards in a timelier manner and thereby
better serve States, districts, institutions, and other grantees. The
Secretary is not establishing these priorities outside of the
legislative process but rather pursuant to his general authority to
promulgate regulations (20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474).
We disagree that stakeholders have not had the opportunity to
provide sufficient input. Approximately 150 commenters offered feedback
and recommendations on the proposed priorities. We received valuable
input from the public and took commenters' recommendations into account
in drafting these final priorities and definitions. Indeed, as
explained elsewhere in this notice, we are making several changes to
the final priorities and definitions to address commenters' feedback,
as well as adding several priorities in response to comments received.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received several comments from individuals who
construed the priorities to be part of the Department's Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization proposal and objected to
what they believed was the consolidation and conversion of existing
formula grant programs into competitive grants.
Discussion: These priorities will provide flexibility for the
Department to include one or more of these priorities in a notice
inviting applications for existing competitive grant programs if doing
so is consistent with the program statute and regulations. With these
priorities, we do not intend to consolidate or convert existing ESEA
formula grant programs into competitive grant programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that projects
proposing to serve students with disabilities were not proposed as a
separate priority. Other commenters stated that the needs of students
with disabilities should be addressed in all of the proposed
priorities, not just in a few.
Discussion: These priorities serve all students, including students
with disabilities. Additionally, students with disabilities are
specifically referred to in several of the priorities. For example, new
Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) (Improving Achievement and High School
Graduation Rates) specifically focuses on projects that accelerate
learning and help improve high school graduation rates and college
enrollment rates for students with disabilities. New Priority 10
(proposed Priority 7) (Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education) specifically refers to individuals with
disabilities as one of the groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in STEM careers and for which this priority could be
used to increase the number of such students that have access to
rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM and are prepared for
postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM. In addition, we
have included a specific reference to students with disabilities in the
definition of high-need children and high-need students, which is used
in Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning Outcomes), new Priority 8
(proposed Priority 5) (Increasing Postsecondary Success), and new
Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) (Improving Achievement and High School
Graduation Rates). In sum, we believe that we have included specific
references to students with disabilities where such references are most
appropriate and would be most helpful in targeting funds on activities
[[Page 78488]]
that would improve services to, and outcomes for, such students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that only Priority 1
(Improving Early Learning Outcomes) included a focus on literacy. The
commenter stated that literacy instruction is a fundamental
instructional priority for elementary and secondary students and
recommended that literacy instruction and professional development be
added as a separate priority or integrated throughout the priorities.
Discussion: We agree that literacy is essential to students'
success in school. Although literacy instruction is not specifically
referenced in every priority, the purpose of these priorities is to
help improve student achievement and ensure that all children are ready
to succeed in school and are on track to graduate from high school with
the knowledge and skills needed for success in college and careers.
Thus, we think that literacy instruction is encompassed within the
priorities. We, therefore, do not believe that a separate priority with
a specific focus on literacy instruction is needed.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about using any of the
priorities for the Federal TRIO Programs authorized by Title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The commenter
recommended that these priorities be incorporated into separate,
specialized competitions that would provide supplemental funds to
currently-funded TRIO grantees. The commenter stated that imposing
these priorities could potentially deny services to students who are
otherwise eligible to participate in TRIO programs and that the
legislative history of TRIO clearly rejects the use of any priorities
other than those that promote continuity of student services through
the consideration of the prior experience of grant applications in
successfully providing TRIO services.
Discussion: These priorities are not intended to replace the
priorities applicable to the TRIO programs under Title IV of the HEA.
As mentioned earlier, this action will provide flexibility for the
Department to include one or more of these priorities in a notice
inviting applications if doing so is consistent with the authorizing
statute. We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion that these
priorities should not be applied to the TRIO programs. The Department
has the authority to establish appropriate priorities for the TRIO
programs and has done so in the past. We believe that certain of these
priorities are fully consistent with and will contribute to achieving
the goals of the TRIO programs and accordingly may apply the priorities
to one or more of the TRIO programs, as appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that new Priority 11 (proposed
Priority 8) (Promoting Diversity), which focuses on projects that are
designed to promote student diversity, including racial and ethnic
diversity, will provide significant educational benefits to all
students. However, the commenter expressed concern about the absence of
a priority on achieving gender equity.
Discussion: We agree that all students should have equal access to
high-quality education programs and have made this explicit in new
Priority 10 (proposed Priority 7) (Promoting STEM Education), which
specifically refers to groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM
careers, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and
women. Given this priority and new Priority 11 (proposed Priority 8)
(Promoting Diversity), we do not believe it is necessary to have a
separate priority on gender equity.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received a number of recommendations to add other
priorities to this notice. One commenter recommended including in all
of the priorities a requirement that applicants use ``universal design
for learning'' in their projects. Another commenter stated that the
priorities lack a substantive focus on the arts, history, social
science, and physical education. One commenter recommended adding a
priority that focuses on increasing and protecting the rights of young
people by ending domestic and dating violence.
Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters' recommendations for
additional priorities, we believe that the priorities included in this
notice have the greatest potential to significantly improve student
achievement and student outcomes, and to ensure that the Department's
discretionary grant programs effectively spur innovation and promote
the development and implementation of effective and sustainable
practices. In addition, we believe these priorities support adoption of
the reforms needed to meet the President's goal for the U.S. by 2020 to
once again lead the world in the proportion of citizens holding college
degrees or other postsecondary credentials.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Department did
not provide sufficient time for public comment on the proposed
priorities. This commenter also stated that because the Department
published the proposed priorities at the beginning of the school year,
school leaders and educators did not have enough time to provide
meaningful feedback on the proposed priorities. The commenter requested
that the Department provide an additional 30 days for comment on the
proposed priorities.
Discussion: As we stated earlier, we believe the 30-day comment
period was sufficient to ensure timely and meaningful comment on the
proposed priorities. We understand that the timing of Department
notices may not always be optimal for all education stakeholders. The
Department strives to balance the needs of our stakeholders with our
desire for public input. In addition, we take into consideration our
need to publish discretionary grant notices in a timely manner so that
applicants have sufficient time to prepare their applications and the
Department has sufficient time to conduct a thorough peer review of
those applications. We decline to provide an additional 30 days for
public comment because to do so would limit our ability to use these
priorities in our notices inviting applications for discretionary
grants as early as possible in FY 2011, while also making timely
awards.
Changes: None.
Priority 1--Improving Early Learning Outcomes
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that Priority 1 could be
used for projects that are focused solely on children in the early
elementary years rather than on projects that address the needs of
early learners from birth through third grade. Another commenter stated
that rather than focusing on the entire birth-through-third grade
continuum, the priority should focus on distinct age groups within the
continuum (i.e., infants and toddlers, three- and four-year old
children, and primary-grade children).
Discussion: Our intent is to use this priority across a number of
different programs. Therefore, we do not want to unnecessarily limit
its focus by requiring all projects to address the entire birth-
through-third grade continuum. We are adding language to make this
clear.
Changes: We have added the parenthetical, ``(or for any age group
of high-need children within this range)'' following ``birth through
third grade.'' The introduction to Priority 1 now reads: ``Projects
that are designed to improve school readiness and success for high-need
children (as defined in this notice) from birth through third
[[Page 78489]]
grade (or for any age group of high-need children within this range)
through a focus on one or more of the following priority areas.''
Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the priority's option
for projects to address one or more of the priority areas (e.g.,
physical well-being and motor development, social-emotional
development, language and literacy development), rather than requiring
projects to address all of the priority areas. The commenter stated
that projects focusing on only one of the priority areas might not
improve school readiness for high-need children.
Discussion: The focus of each of the Department's discretionary
grant programs is determined by the program's authorizing statute that
directs, and generally determines, how funds can be used. For example,
there are discretionary grant funds that can only be used to support
literacy activities but cannot be used for activities focused on
physical well-being and motor development. We intend to ensure that
Priority 1 can be used in a range of Department programs. Therefore, we
have chosen to allow programs to select one or more of the priority
areas under Priority 1 and decline to make the change requested by the
commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that Priority 1 include
topics that are the subject of other proposed priorities. One commenter
recommended adding a focus on improving the effectiveness of teachers
who teach young children. Another commenter recommended adding a focus
on the needs of young children with parents who are serving in the
military. One commenter recommended including a focus on improving and
aligning State standards in all early learning domains and ensuring
that curricula and instructional assessments are consistent with expert
recommendations. Another commenter recommended including a focus on
effective collaboration, coordination, and data-based decision-making.
Discussion: The priority does not preclude applicants from
proposing the projects suggested by the commenters, so long as the
proposals address one or more of the priority areas identified and
comply with the applicable statute and program regulations. We believe
that it is unnecessary to add a focus in Priority 1 on areas that are
the same as those covered in other priorities because the Department
can use more than one priority for a particular discretionary grant
program competition. For example, if the Department wishes to focus a
competition on improving the effectiveness of teachers who teach young
children, it can include both Priority 1 (Improving Early Learning
Outcomes) and Priority 3 (Improving the Effectiveness and Distribution
of Effective Teachers and Principals) in its notice inviting
applications. On the other hand, in some competitions it might not be
appropriate or legally allowable to focus Priority 1 on specific issues
or populations; framing the priority in a flexible manner, as we have
done, would allow the Department to use it in such a context.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that language be added to
the priority to emphasize meeting the diverse needs of children,
including those who exhibit early signs of disabilities or giftedness.
Another commenter stated that Priority 1 should address the special
needs of English learners.
Discussion: Priority 1 focuses on high-need children from birth
through third grade. As defined in this notice, the term high-need
children and high-need students includes children and students at risk
of educational failure, and specifically refers to English learners and
children and students with disabilities as examples of high-need
children. As written, the definition would also encompass children who
are gifted if those children are at risk of educational failure.
Therefore, we have concluded that it is unnecessary to include the
additional language suggested by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended replacing ``education'' with
``early learning and education'' to emphasize the importance of
improving the quality of education from ``cradle to career.''
Discussion: In this priority, we believe ``education'' broadly
includes ``early learning'' and, therefore, decline to make the change
suggested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that children participating in camp
programs show significant growth in such areas as self-esteem,
independence, and leadership, and recommended that outcome-based camp
programs be deemed eligible recipients of funds under any of the
Department's discretionary grant programs that use Priority 1. Another
commenter stated that Priority 1 should be an absolute priority or a
competitive preference priority in all Department discretionary grant
programs in order to emphasize the importance of investments in young
children. One commenter recommended that reviewers of proposals
submitted in competitions that apply Priority 1 should include
professionals with expertise in each phase of child development,
including the development of infants and toddlers.
Discussion: This notice does not address the issue of who is
eligible to apply for particular grants or whether a priority is
designated as an absolute priority, competitive preference priority, or
invitational priority. Those decisions are determined by the
authorizing legislation and by the Department in announcing individual
competitions. In addition, it would not be appropriate to apply
Priority 1 to every Department competition as many of our competitive
programs (such as those in the areas of higher education and vocational
rehabilitation) have no real connection to early learning. Similarly,
we will not address the peer review process here, other than to
reassure the commenter that as part of the Department's competitive
grant process, the Department selects reviewers based on their
expertise in the area or areas to be addressed in each discretionary
grant program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding ``creative arts'' to the
priority areas included in Priority 1. The commenter stated that
engaging children in creative arts can improve their learning in other
developmental areas. Another commenter recommended including a priority
area that focuses on curricula that encourage communication and
reasoning and provide children with an ``atmosphere of respect,
encouragement, and enthusiasm for learning.''
Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to make the changes
requested by the commenters because the priority areas in Priority 1
already include ``approaches toward learning,'' which refers to a
child's disposition over a range of attitudes, habits, and learning
styles, including the capacity for invention, creativity, and
imagination. These are demonstrated through all domains, including
creative arts. Priority 1 could, therefore, be used to fund projects
that use creative arts or other curricula in order to improve school
readiness and success for high-need children, provided such a focus was
supported by the program statute and regulations.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add ``early
career exploration'' as a priority area to Priority 1. The commenter
stated that it is important to expose children to role models early in
life and to avoid
[[Page 78490]]
the development of biases and stereotypes that could possibly evolve
into barriers for students' success in their careers and life in
general.
Discussion: We believe that adding language on early career
exploration to Priority 1 would unnecessarily limit the focus of the
priority. However, a project that focuses on early career exploration
for high-need children from birth through third grade could be
responsive to priority area (d) if the project used early career
exploration as an approach to learning that would improve school
readiness and success for high-need children, and if such a focus was
authorized by the program statute and regulations.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended revising Priority 1 to emphasize
alignment and coordination with existing early childhood programs that
are serving infants, toddlers, and young children (e.g., programs under
the IDEA).
Discussion: While we agree that early childhood programs should
coordinate with each other, we decline to make the suggested change
because the priority focuses on the outcomes to be achieved--improving
school readiness and success--rather than on the specific strategies
that an applicant may choose for attaining an outcome.
Changes: None.
Priority 2--Implementing Internationally Benchmarked, College- and
Career-Ready Elementary and Secondary Academic Standards
Comment: We received several comments regarding the content and
nature of the academic standards supported by projects under this
priority. One commenter expressed concern that the priority would
support projects using only academic standards developed under the
Common Core State Standards initiative; this commenter recommended that
the Department use the priority to support implementation of other
rigorous academic standards commonly used in States, such as standards
for Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses. Two
commenters suggested that the Department revise the priority to include
support for projects using academic standards that are rigorous but
might not be common among multiple States; one of these commenters
expressed concern that, with this priority, the Department is
advocating for national academic standards that might not be suitable
in all States or regions of the country.
Discussion: The Department does not require that any specific
academic standards be supported to meet this priority, only that they
be internationally benchmarked, ensure that students graduate from high
school college- and career-ready, and be held in common by multiple
States. While we are not mandating the use of specific academic
standards, and will not apply Priority 2 to restrict applicants to
using only one set of standards, the Department believes strongly that
adoption of common K-12 academic standards by States will provide a
foundation for more efficient and effective creation of the assessment,
instructional, and professional development resources needed to
implement a coherent system of teaching and learning. The Department
intends to use this priority to support the implementation of academic
standards that are common among multiple States and are adopted
voluntarily by States and their local educational agencies (LEAs).
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include support for projects advancing the
implementation of a broader range of standards. Commenters recommended
standards in the following areas: social, emotional, cultural,
vocational, physical skills, civics, and health and sexuality. In
addition, one commenter recommended that the Department revise the
priority to include support for ``21st Century skills'' standards,
including critical thinking and other skills relating to employment.
Some of these commenters argued that mastery of these standards is also
needed if students are to be career-ready.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that development of standards
in many of the areas mentioned by the commenters is important, and we
commend the work that States and other stakeholders may be undertaking
to develop common and rigorous standards in these areas. This priority
could be used to support implementation of those standards as well, if
they are internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready, and
held in common by multiple States.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received several comments recommending that the
Department provide greater specificity in terms of the projects that
the priority could support. One commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to mention specifically that projects in
career and technical education may support the implementation of
college- and career-ready standards. Another commenter suggested that
the Department revise paragraph (a) of the priority to support the
development and implementation of specific types of assessments
including: Longitudinal assessments (i.e., assessments that measure
student growth over time); assessments that include performance tasks;
portfolio assessments; and assessments that incorporate classroom-based
observations. Another commenter recommended that the Department revise
paragraph (c) of the priority to specify the types of professional
development or preparation programs that may be used to meet the
priority; the commenter recommended that only programs that are
research-based and include clinical experiences (such as teacher
residency programs) be permitted under the priority.
We also received several comments recommending that we provide
greater specificity on the types of student subgroups that projects
under the priority should serve. Several commenters recommended that we
revise the priority to include a focus on projects implementing
college- and career-ready academic standards for students with diverse
learning needs, including gifted, talented, and other advanced
students, as well as students with disabilities. Another commenter
recommended that we revise the priority to include a focus on projects
implementing standards for highly mobile students.
Discussion: We decline to revise the priority in the manner
recommended by the commenters as such changes could unnecessarily limit
the applicability of the priority across Department programs. We note
that the types of projects mentioned by the commenters would not be
prohibited under this priority and that, in a program using the
priority, such projects may be allowable provided they comply with
applicable program statutes and regulations.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
paragraph (a) of the priority to support the development and
implementation of assessments that are both aligned with college- and
career-ready academic standards and designed to improve teaching and
learning. The commenter asserted that this revision would help clarify
that assessments can be used for instructional improvement as well as
for accountability purposes.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of
supporting projects that improve instruction and learning. To promote
this goal, we are revising the priority so that the goal of improved
instruction
[[Page 78491]]
and learning applies to all projects covered by the priority.
Changes: We have revised the introduction to Priority 2 by adding
``and to improve instruction and learning'' following ``held in common
by multiple States.'' With this revision, the introduction reads as
follows: ``Projects that are designed to support the implementation of
internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready academic
standards held in common by multiple States and to improve instruction
and learning, including projects in one or more of the following
priority areas.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
paragraph (b) of the priority to include support for the development
and implementation of curricula as well as instructional materials. The
commenter asserted that more attention should be paid to the
development of curricula aligned with new college- and career-ready
standards.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter and are revising this
paragraph of the priority to include support for the development and
implementation of curricula aligned with college- and career-ready
standards.
Changes: We have added ``curriculum or'' before ``instructional
materials'' in paragraph (b) of this priority. With this revision,
paragraph (b) reads as follows: ``The development or implementation of
curriculum or instructional materials aligned with those standards.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
paragraph (d) of the priority to include support for ongoing school-
level support systems, as well as strategies that translate standards
into classroom practice. The commenter asserted that more attention
should be paid to the support structures needed to implement new
college- and career-ready academic standards with fidelity.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concerns; however, we do
not believe we should specify the strategies that may be used under
paragraph (d) as this could limit the applicability of the priority
across Department programs. Further, we believe that implementing
school-level support systems is a strategy for translating standards
into classroom practice and, therefore, is already covered under the
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the
priority to include an additional paragraph promoting equity of
conditions and resources for implementing college- and career-ready
academic standards across schools.
Discussion: We believe that funding projects through programs using
this priority promotes equity in schools' abilities to implement
college- and career-ready academic standards and, accordingly, that the
revision recommended by the commenter is unnecessary.
Changes: None.
Priority 3--Improving the Effectiveness and Distribution of Effective
Teachers or Principals
Comment: Several commenters recommended that we revise this
priority to include preparation, recruitment, retention, professional
development, and increasing salaries as ways of improving teacher and
principal effectiveness or ensuring the equitable distribution of
teachers and principals. Other commenters suggested more specific
methods for improving the effectiveness of teachers and principals,
such as: Providing teachers with opportunities to mentor each other to
prevent isolation; training teachers and principals to identify and
address unique learning needs; supporting professional development
programs; providing teachers with a daily planning period; supporting
teacher preparation programs; and requiring teachers to acquire
different credentials for different geographic areas.
Discussion: The Department agrees that improving the preparation,
recruitment, retention, and professional development of teachers and
principals, and improving their compensation systems can be effective
methods for improving teacher and principal effectiveness and the
equitable distribution of teachers and principals. We also believe that
improving the evaluation of teachers and principals and implementing
performance-based certification and retention systems can improve the
effectiveness and distribution of teachers and principals. Therefore,
we are revising the priority to include these activities as examples of
methods that a project might use under this priority. However, we do
not believe it is necessary to reference the more specific activities
suggested by the commenters as this level of specificity may
inadvertently limit the focus of the priority. We note that this
priority would not preclude an applicant from focusing its project on
these specific activities, provided such a focus was authorized by the
program statute and regulations.
Changes: We have added ``improving the preparation, recruitment,
development, and evaluation of teachers and principals; implementing
performance-based certification and retention systems; and reforming
compensation and advancement systems'' as examples of the types of
methods that might be used to improve teacher and principal
effectiveness.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that we revise the priority
to clarify how States and school districts should evaluate teachers and
principals. A number of these commenters expressed concern that student
test scores would be the only evaluation measure that would be
supported under the priority. One commenter recommended that continued
and sustained growth in student achievement is the best way to evaluate
teachers and principals. Several commenters suggested that the
Department provide more flexibility in the definitions of effective
teacher and effective principal to take into account different State
and local contexts. Other commenters suggested that the Department
revise the priority to include the use of positive learning conditions
as an example of a supplemental evaluation measure.
A number of commenters expressed concerns regarding the proposed
definitions of effective principal, effective teacher, highly effective
principal, and highly effective teacher. Several commenters objected to
assessing principal and teacher effectiveness based in significant part
on student achievement on standardized tests and questioned the
validity and reliability of ``value-added'' measures. Others stated
that measures of growth in student achievement have not been adequately
studied for the purposes of evaluating teachers and principals and
expressed concerns about implementing such systems in a manner that is
fair, reliable, and valid.
Discussion: We agree that the priority should take into account the
varied contexts of States and districts, including the fact that some
States have made great strides toward establishing high-quality teacher
and principal evaluation systems that take into account student growth,
in significant part, along with multiple measures of effectiveness,
while other States have not yet progressed to that point. Thus, to
clarify the Department's intent, we are revising the priority to ensure
that the priority is applicable to States and districts that have in
place high-quality teacher and principal evaluation systems, as well as
States and districts where such systems are not yet established. The
new language focuses on measuring teacher and principal effectiveness
using data that include
[[Page 78492]]
student growth in significant part, but does not require student
achievement or student growth data to be the only measure of teacher or
principal effectiveness; other measures, such as those proposed by the
commenters, could be included as measures of effectiveness under this
priority. Given these changes, the definitions of effective principal,
effective teacher, highly effective principal, and highly effective
teacher are no longer needed and we are removing them from this
priority.
Changes: We have revised Priority 3 to read as follows: ``Projects
that are designed to address one or more of the following priority
areas:
(a) Increasing the number or percentage of teachers or principals
who are effective or reducing the number or percentage of teachers or
principals who are ineffective, particularly in high-poverty schools
(as defined in this notice) including through such activities as
improving the preparation, recruitment, development, and evaluation of
teachers and principals; implementing performance-based certification
and retention systems; and reforming compensation and advancement
systems.
(b) Increasing the retention, particularly in high-poverty schools
(as defined in this notice), and equitable distribution of teachers or
principals who are effective.
For the purposes of this priority, teacher and principal
effectiveness should be measured using:
(1) Teacher or principal evaluation data, in States or local
educational agencies that have in place a high-quality teacher or
principal evaluation system that takes into account student growth (as
defined in this notice) in significant part and uses multiple measures
that, in the case of teachers, may include observations for determining
teacher effectiveness (such as systems that meet the criteria for
evaluation systems under the Race to the Top program as described in
criterion (D)(2)(ii) of the Race to the Top notice inviting
applications (74 FR 59803)); or
(2) Data that include, in significant part, student achievement (as
defined in this notice) or student growth (as defined in this notice)
data and may include multiple measures in States or local educational
agencies that do not have the teacher or principal evaluation systems
described in paragraph (1).''
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department revise the
priority to identify other types of educational support staff, such as
administrators, therapists, and early learning practitioners.
Discussion: We agree that a wide array of educators and school
personnel is critical to student success. However we have decided to
focus this priority on improving the effectiveness of classroom
teachers and principals because of their critical importance in raising
student achievement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority be revised to
take into consideration applicable negotiated labor agreements and
other legal obligations.
Discussion: It is the responsibility of each applicant to ensure
that its proposed project under this or any other priority takes into
consideration any applicable Federal, State, or local legal
obligations. It is also the responsibility of each applicant to ensure
that its proposal abides by any applicable labor agreements.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: In reviewing the proposed priorities, we noticed that
paragraph (b) of this priority regarding the retention and equitable
distribution of teachers or principals who are effective should have
included a reference to the retention of such teachers and principals
in high-poverty schools. We are including this reference in the final
priority.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (b) of the priority to
add,``particularly in high-poverty schools (as defined in this
notice),'' after the word ``retention.''
Priority 4--Turning Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
Comment: A number of commenters recommended that we revise the
priority to include specific strategies to turn around persistently
lowest-achieving schools. Many commenters recommended that the priority
mention expanded learning time, including after-school and summer
programs, as an acceptable approach to turning around schools. One
commenter recommended revising the priority to provide support for
career and technical education as a strategy to improve student
achievement and increase graduation rates. Another commenter suggested
that the Department revise the priority to encourage the use of
technology to increase the capacity of schools to improve student
achievement and graduation rates. One commenter expressed concern that
the proposed priority did not mention ``response to intervention'' as a
successful strategy for improving results for at-risk students. Another
commenter recommended that the Department add language to specify that
services be aligned with the efforts of other agencies in order to
create a coordinated system of supports.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' suggestions of promising
strategies to turn around persistently lowest-achieving schools, but we
are intentionally allowing flexibility in the possible approaches that
could be used under this priority. Therefore, we decline to include the
recommended strategies in this priority. This priority would not
preclude an applicant from including in its proposal the suggested
strategies provided that such strategies are authorized by the
applicable program statute and regulations.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that the four turnaround
models required under the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program would
be required in order for an applicant to meet this priority. These
commenters recommended that a fifth option be added to provide more
flexibility on the strategies that can be used in turning around
persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Discussion: Priority 4 does not require implementation of the four
SIG models (i.e., school turnaround, school transformation, school
closure, restart), nor does it specify any strategies that must be used
for turning around persistently lowest-achieving schools. As noted
previously, this priority is focused on the outcomes listed in the
priority, not on prescribing specific strategies for achieving those
outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the
priority to include support specifically for school turnaround efforts
that are sustainable. The commenter stated that this change would help
ensure that successful turnaround efforts will be rewarded with
additional funding.
Discussion: We decline to make the change recommended by the
commenter because the likelihood that a particular model or strategy
would be sustainable in a given school is a factor that school
officials must necessarily consider in making decisions about the model
or strategies to implement in a school in need of improvement. It is
unclear how selecting a sustainable model or strategies would
necessarily lead to additional funding, as stated by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department add a focus in
Priority 4 on providing services to support military-connected
students.
[[Page 78493]]
Discussion: Priority 4 is focused on the outcomes listed in the
priority, not on specific subgroups of students. Therefore, we decline
to make the change requested by the commenter. We note that new
Priority 12 (proposed Priority 9) specifically focuses on support for
military-connected students and their families.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority be revised to
require projects to focus on narrowing achievement gaps for all
subgroups of students in persistently lowest-achieving schools. The
commenter stated that the success of the whole school relies on the
achievement of all students.
Discussion: We agree that narrowing the achievement gap for
subgroups is an important goal for all schools, including persistently
lowest-achieving schools. However, we decline to revise the priority
because we believe that in persistently lowest-achieving schools, which
are among the lowest-achieving schools in each State, the primary focus
should be on improving student achievement for all students in the
school.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
paragraph (b) of this priority to include a focus on increasing
graduation rates of students with disabilities. The commenter also
recommended that the Department revise paragraph (c) to ensure that
services provided to students are available and adequate for students
with disabilities.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to include a focus on
improving student achievement and increasing the graduation rates of
students with disabilities. For this reason, we included a specific
provision in new Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) (Improving
Achievement and High School Graduation Rates) that focuses on projects
that accelerate learning and help improve high school graduation rates
and college enrollment rates for students with disabilities. However,
we decline to modify Priority 4 in the manner suggested by the
commenter because the focus of this priority is on improving student
achievement for all students in persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that this priority's
focus on schools meeting the definition of persistently lowest-
achieving schools is too narrow. The commenters recommended that the
priority be expanded to include support for other low-performing
schools and for schools at risk of becoming low performing.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern about serving
low-performing schools other than those that are persistently lowest-
achieving. However, our intention with this priority is to focus
specifically on the schools most in need of improvement, which are the
persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined in this notice.
Accordingly, we decline to expand the scope of this priority.
Changes: None.
New Priority 5--Improving School Engagement, School Environment, and
School Safety and Improving Family and Community Engagement
Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that the Department modify
the proposed priorities to include support for projects that create
safe and supportive schools and engage communities and families to
improve student achievement.
Safe and Supportive Schools
Many commenters expressed support for the Department's discussion
of school culture and climate in the background for proposed Priority 4
(Turning Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools), and proposed
Priority 10 (Data-Based Decision Making). Several commenters suggested
that the Department add a separate priority that would support projects
designed to improve school climate. For example, numerous commenters
noted that a positive and supportive school climate and culture can
help to improve students' academic achievement, especially for those
students most at risk of not succeeding academically and for students
attending persistently lowest-achieving schools. Several commenters
articulated concerns about the negative impact that bullying and
harassment can have on students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) students, and these students' ability to achieve
academic success. Commenters noted that bullying and harassment can
lead to poor learning environments where students feel unsafe or in
danger of physical harm, negatively affecting a student's ability to
successfully complete high school and pursue postsecondary education.
Multiple commenters cited research demonstrating that school
environments influence student achievement. For example, one commenter
described evidence showing that bullying, harassment, and unduly harsh
disciplinary practices have serious academic consequences, including
decreased interest in school, increased absences, decreased
concentration levels, lower grades, and higher dropout rates. Multiple
commenters also noted how important school climate is for military-
connected students and, in particular, the need for schools to provide
mental health support for students with deployed parents.
Family and Community Engagement
Numerous commenters urged the Department to establish a separate
priority for projects that would focus on enhancing family engagement
in students' learning. Commenters cited research showing that family
engagement is a significant factor in student success, including in
ensuring that students meet high academic standards and are college-
and career-ready when they graduate from high school. Several
commenters also noted how important it is to support parents'
involvement in their children's education, particularly for children
from low-income families, young children who participate in early
learning programs, and children with disabilities. Multiple commenters
emphasized the importance of engaging families as key partners in their
children's education, working hand in hand with them in schools and
ensuring that parents and families understand data and information on
student performance. Another commenter recommended that if the
Department establishes a priority focusing on family engagement, the
priority should include support for projects that provide technical
assistance to families of high-need students to support higher
education and postsecondary success.
Multiple commenters suggested that the Department add a new
priority that would support projects designed to promote community
engagement in students' education. One commenter observed that family-
led and community-based organizations can play a key role in
implementing education reforms. Another commenter stated that for
education reforms to be successful, there needs to be a strong
relationship among communities, schools, and families at the very
beginning of the reform process. Specifically, the commenter stated
that community schools are the best vehicles to encourage and ensure
high school completion and postsecondary success. These commenters also
provided definitions for ``community engagement'' and ``family
engagement'' and recommended that definitions of these terms be added
to the final notice along with the new priority.
Discussion: The Department agrees that safe and supportive schools
are
[[Page 78494]]
critical to improving students' learning and enhancing teacher
effectiveness. Students learn best when they are in a school
environment with, among other things, positive relationships between
adults and students; the absence of violence, bullying, harassment, and
substance abuse; and readily available physical and mental health
supports and services. The Department has been clear that preparing
students for success requires learning environments that help all
students to be safe, healthy, and supported in their classrooms,
schools, and communities. For example, on July 9, 2010, the Department
published a notice inviting applications for the Safe and Supportive
Schools program to support statewide measurement of, and targeted
interventions to improve, conditions for learning, and provided
definitions of ``school engagement,'' ``school environment,'' and
``school safety'' (see 75 FR 39504). The Department also has been clear
that bullying and harassing students, including LGBT students, is
damaging to those students and unacceptable (see the guidance the
Department provided on October 26, 2010, available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf).
Similarly, the Department is committed to improving family and
community engagement as part of its comprehensive approach to improving
student achievement. Preparing students for success requires greater
opportunities to engage families in their children's education and
strengthening the role of schools as centers of communities. For
example, the Department's Promise Neighborhoods program encourages
robust development and implementation of a continuum of effective
community services, strong family supports, and comprehensive education
reforms to improve education and life outcomes for children and youth
in high-need communities. In addition, in May, 2010, the Department
proposed doubling funding (through the ESEA reauthorization) for
activities promoting family engagement from 1 percent to 2 percent of
Title I dollars and proposes to ask LEAs to use these funds in a more
systemic and comprehensive way.
Based on the many informative comments we received and our strong
belief in the need to promote safe and supportive school environments
and enhanced family and community engagement in students' learning, we
are adding a priority that would support projects designed to improve
school environment and safety, and projects designed to improve parent
and family and community engagement. We are establishing a separate
priority rather than modifying each individual priority to ensure that
there is appropriate focus on these important issues. We also believe
this priority will be broad enough for many of our programs to use
within the parameters of their authorizing program statutes and
regulations and, thereby, will support many of the types of strategies
and supports mentioned by the commenters. Programs also will be able to
use this priority in conjunction with one or more of the other
priorities established in this notice.
Changes: The Department has added a new priority, Priority 5--
School Engagement, School Environment, and School Safety and Family and
Community Engagement, that reads as follows:
``Projects that are designed to improve student outcomes through
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Improving school engagement, which may include increasing the
quality of relationships between and among administrators, teachers,
families, and students and increasing participation in school-related
activities.
(b) Improving the school environment, which may include improving
the school setting related to student learning, safety, and health.
(c) Improving school safety, which may include decreasing the
incidence of harassment, bullying, violence, and substance use.
(d) Improving parent and family engagement (as defined in this
notice).
(e) Improving community engagement (as defined in this notice) by
supporting partnerships between local educational agencies, school
staff, and one or more of the following:
(i) Faith- or community-based organizations.
(ii) Institutions of higher education.
(iii) Minority-serving institutions or historically black colleges
and universities.
(iv) Business or industry.
(v) Other Federal, State, or local government entities.''
We have also added to this notice definitions for community
engagement and parent and family engagement that read as follows:
``Community engagement means the systematic inclusion of community
organizations as partners with local educational agencies and school
staff. These organizations may include faith- and community-based
organizations, institutions of higher education (including minority-
serving institutions and historically black colleges and universities),
business and industry, or other Federal, State, and local government
entities.''
``Parent and family engagement means the systematic inclusion of
parents and families, working in partnership with local educational
agencies and school staff, in their child's education, which may
include strengthening the ability of (a) parents and families to
support their child's education and (b) school staff to work with
parents and families.''
New Priority 6--Technology
Comment: We received a number of comments requesting that the
Department add a priority that recognizes the role that educational
technology can play in increasing student achievement, implementing
school reforms, and improving teacher effectiveness. Commenters also
suggested that we include language focused on education technology in
the individual priorities. Several commenters stated that in its FY
2011 budget request, the Department emphasized the importance of
integrating technology into instruction and using technology to drive
improvements in teaching and learning. Commenters also noted that the
Department's Blueprint for the ESEA reauthorization highlighted the
necessity of supporting projects that leverage technological tools,
including digital information and communications technologies. These
commenters stated that these priorities should similarly reflect a
significant level of support for the use of technology in education.
Commenters recommended that the Department support projects that
are designed to use technology to raise student achievement, to develop
student skills in the effective use of technology, and to use
technology to support individualized instruction. One commenter
specifically noted the role that technology will play in the
assessments to be developed by State consortia under the Race to the
Top Assessment program. Commenters also encouraged the Department to
support projects that use technology to provide professional
development to teachers.
Several commenters recommended that a priority on education
technology focus on several areas, including transitioning from print
to digital instructional materials (including open educational
resources); accelerating the adoption of high-quality formative and
summative assessments; and increasing the availability of online and
blended opportunities for students, especially where students'
opportunities are limited by geography or personal circumstance. Other
areas the commenters suggested should be
[[Page 78495]]
included in such a priority are the fostering of 21st century,
personalized learning environments centered on improving student
achievement in the core subject areas and providing professional
development to educators and school leaders to assist them in
effectively selecting, using, and evaluating the effectiveness of
technology tools and information systems.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that technology can play a
vital role in improving student achievement, increasing students'
access to instructional content, and increasing teacher and school
leader effectiveness through enhanced professional development. As
several commenters noted, we have recognized the critical role of
technology in education in our Blueprint for the ESEA reauthorization
and in our FY 2011 budget request. We agree with those commenters that
these final priorities should reflect a similar emphasis on educational
technology.
Rather than modify each individual priority, we have decided to
establish a new priority focused solely on educational technology.
Under this new priority, the Department would support projects that are
designed to improve student achievement or teacher effectiveness
through the use of high-quality digital tools and materials. We believe
this priority will be broad enough for many of our programs to use
within the parameters of their authorizing program statute and
regulations and, thereby, will support many of the types of innovative
uses of technology mentioned by the commenters, while ensuring that the
development and implementation of these new approaches are based on
data demonstrating the effectiveness of the technology in improving
student achievement or teacher effectiveness. Programs will be able to
use this priority in conjunction with one or more of the other
priorities established in this notice.
Changes: We have established a new priority, Priority 6--
Technology, that reads as follows: ``Projects that are designed to
improve student achievement or teacher effectiveness through the use of
high-quality digital tools or materials, which may include preparing
teachers to use the technology to improve instruction, as well as
developing, implementing, or evaluating digital tools or materials.''
New Priority 7--Core Reforms
Comment: A number of commenters strongly supported the adoption of
college- and career-ready standards and stated that implementation of
such standards can serve as a catalyst for education reform. Other
commenters noted the importance of effectively evaluating teachers and
principals, and implementing statewide longitudinal data systems that
provide educators and families the data they need to increase student
achievement. One commenter stated that statewide longitudinal data
systems are the foundation for successfully implementing other
education reforms. Several commenters supported the Department's
efforts to outline a comprehensive reform agenda and to better allocate
limited Federal resources to areas of significant need. One commenter
recommended that the Department consider ways in which it could
encourage applicants for discretionary grant programs to continue their
comprehensive reform efforts.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that implementing college-
and career-ready standards and increasing data-based decision making
are key drivers of comprehensive reform. Given the critical role that
teachers and principals play in improving student learning, we believe
that teacher and principal evaluation systems are another key driver of
reform. We appreciate the commenters' support for the Department's
comprehensive reform efforts and agree that the Department should
support and encourage States to continue implementing comprehensive
reforms that result in improved student achievement, narrowed
achievement gaps, and increased high school graduation and college
enrollment rates. Therefore, we are adding a new Priority 7 to support
projects in States, LEAs, or schools where core reforms are being
implemented. This priority focuses on projects conducted in a State
that has adopted K-12 academic standards that build toward college- and
career-readiness; in a State that has implemented a statewide
longitudinal data system; and is in an LEA or school that provides
student growth (as defined in this notice) data to teachers.
Changes: The Department has added a new priority, Priority 7--Core
Reforms, that reads as follows:
``Projects conducted in States, local educational agencies, or
schools where core reforms are being implemented. Such a project is one
that is conducted--
(a) In a State that has adopted K-12 State academic standards in
English language arts and mathematics that build towards college- and
career-readiness;
(b) In a State that has implemented a statewide longitudinal data
system that meets all the requirements of the America COMPETES Act; and
(c) In a local educational agency or school in which teachers
receive student growth (as defined in this notice) data on their
current students and the students they taught in the previous year and
these data are provided, at a minimum, to teachers of reading/language
arts and mathematics in grades in which the State administers
assessments in those subjects.''
New Priority 8 (Proposed Priority 5)--Increasing Postsecondary Success
Comment: Two commenters stated that one of the biggest challenges
faced by those who are unemployed is that a majority of the fastest-
growing industries require postsecondary education. The commenters
noted that rigorous career and technical education programs play a
significant role in preparing individuals with the skills they need to
succeed in today's workforce. Another commenter recommended revising
the language in this priority to emphasize the importance of ensuring
that postsecondary education has value in the labor market. The
commenter recommended that the language in the priority be changed to
focus not only on students who are in the education pipeline, but also
young adults who need to receive additional training to be successfully
employed. One commenter recommended that the priority specifically
reference current military service members and veterans who have served
in the military since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Other commenters stated that while academic standards are
important, the Department should consider ways to encourage a broader
definition of what it means to be successful in a global economy. The
commenters noted that successful schools consider both ``the context of
learning and the full range of human development including civic
standards and measures, learning and innovation skills, and other
applied workplace skills.'' One commenter urged that we support the
implementation of standards ``in a broad range of subjects and
competencies that address the needs of the whole student and prepare
students to succeed in a modern, globally interdependent society.''
Discussion: We agree that new Priority 8 (proposed Priority 5)
should include a focus on completing college or other postsecondary
training that leads to successful employment. While we agree that the
labor market values the education and training provided by
[[Page 78496]]
postsecondary institutions, we do not believe that it is necessary to
include this specific language in the priority. Therefore, we decline
to make the change requested by the commenter.
With regard to the recommendation that the language in the priority
be changed to focus not only on students who are in the education
pipeline, but also young adults who need to receive additional training
to be successfully employed, we note that paragraph (d) focuses on
individuals who return to the educational system. However, we agree
that the language in paragraph (d) could be strengthened to focus on
college enrollment and success, similar to the focus in paragraphs (a),
(b), and (c) for high-risk students, and we are adding language
accordingly.
The Department agrees that it is important to increase the number
of current service members and post-9/11 veterans who enroll in,
persist in, and complete college or other postsecondary training. To
ensure that this priority is as broad and inclusive as possible, and
thereby could be used by multiple programs across the Department, we
decline to reference in the priority specific groups within the
military services. However, in order to reflect the importance of
providing services to current service members and post-9/11 veterans,
and as discussed later in this notice, we are revising the definition
of military-connected student (used in new Priority 12 (proposed
Priority 9)) to include a reference to current service members and
veterans.
With regard to the commenters who recommended that this priority
focus on the ``whole student'' and the knowledge and skills that are
needed to compete successfully in the global economy, we believe that a
high-quality education includes developing students who are well-
rounded and well-prepared for the challenges and responsibilities they
will confront throughout their lives. Preparation for a lifetime of
learning experiences is necessary for effective participation in
democratic society. We believe that these priorities, as written,
encapsulate this idea; however, to clarify our commitment to the
development of the whole student, we are adding a new paragraph (f) to
this priority.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (d) of this priority, which
reads as follows: Increasing the number of individuals who return to
the educational system to obtain a high school diploma; to enroll in
college or other postsecondary education or training; to obtain needed
basic skills leading to success in college or other postsecondary
education or the workforce; or to enter, persist in, and complete
college or rigorous postsecondary career and technical training leading
to a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate.''
We also have added new paragraph (f) to this priority, which reads
as follows: ``Increasing the number and proportion of postsecondary
students who complete college or other postsecondary education and
training and who are demonstrably prepared for successful employment,
active participation in civic life, and lifelong learning.''
Comment: One commenter expressed support for this priority's goal
of preparing high-need students for postsecondary education and future
careers. The commenter recommended using the definition of
``postsecondary education'' that is used in Department program
statutes, and focusing the priority on a broad range of postsecondary
options in order to convey that ``college'' is not limited to four-year
baccalaureate degree programs. Similarly, one commenter recommended
changing ``increasing the number of students who are academically
prepared'' to ``increasing the number of students who are prepared'' in
paragraph (a). Another commenter recommended that the priority refer to
existing national programs and examinations, such as Advanced
Placement, ACT, and International Baccalaureate courses and exams, as
examples of ways to adequately prepare students for college-level
coursework without the need for remediation.
Discussion: New Priority 8 (proposed Priority 5) includes specific
references to training leading to a ``degree, credential, or
certificate,'' in order to make clear that the priority focuses on a
broad range of postsecondary options and is not limited to four-year
degree programs. Therefore, we believe it is unnecessary to add a
definition of ``postsecondary education'' in this notice or to change
the language in paragraph (a) in the manner suggested by the commenter.
However, in order to make clear in paragraphs (c) and (d) that the
outcome is a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate, we are
adding ``postsecondary'' before ``degree, credential, or certificate.''
We decline to include in the priority the specific courses and exams
recommended by the commenter because the priority focuses on the
outcome of increasing postsecondary success rather than on the specific
strategies for attaining that outcome. In fact, rather than focusing on
completing specific courses that do not necessarily lead to a
postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate, we believe the focus
in paragraph (c) regarding career and technical education should be on
programs of study (as defined in this notice). We are changing the
language in paragraph (c) accordingly.
Changes: In paragraphs (c) and (d), we have added ``postsecondary''
before ``degree.'' We also have removed ``secondary or postsecondary
career and technical courses or'' in paragraph (c).
Comment: Two commenters recommended that we revise this priority to
include a focus on increasing the rates at which high-need students
enroll in and complete doctoral or other terminal degree (i.e., the
highest degree in a particular field of study) programs.
Discussion: This priority already focuses on increasing the number
and proportion of high-need students who enroll in and complete
graduate programs. This would encompass students enrolling in and
completing doctoral or other terminal degree programs. We believe that
adding specific references to doctoral or terminal degrees would unduly
narrow the priority such that it could not be used across many of the
Department's programs. We decline, therefore, to make the change
recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority include a
specific focus on providing comprehensive guidance and advice to high-
need students on applying for college and financial aid.
Discussion: As noted in a response to an earlier comment, this
priority focuses on the outcome of increasing postsecondary success
rather than the specific strategies for attaining that outcome.
Therefore, we decline to make the change recommended by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that this priority include a
focus on recruiting and retaining high-quality educators to teach
students in rural areas and high-need students.
Discussion: Paragraph (a) of the priority supports projects that
increase the number and proportion of high-need students who are
academically prepared for and enroll in college or other postsecondary
education and training. This priority would not preclude an applicant
from proposing a project that supports retaining high-quality educators
in rural areas, so long as the project supports the goals of this
priority and complies with the program statute and regulations. For
this reason, the change recommended by the commenter is unnecessary.
[[Page 78497]]
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter, while generally supportive of the priority,
recommended that schools use open educational resources (OER) to
improve and ensure postsecondary success. Another commenter recommended
that products developed with discretionary grant funds be developed
consistent with the requirements for OER.
Discussion: New Priority 16 (proposed Priority 13) (Improving
Productivity) specifically refers to the use of OER to improve results
and strategies. If the Department decides to focus a program
competition on postsecondary success and the use of OER to increase
productivity, and provided such a focus is authorized by the program
statute and regulations, we will be able to include both priorities in
the notice inviting applications. Therefore, we decline to make the
change requested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: During the Department's review of this priority, we
determined that it would be clearer to refer to the ``number and
proportion of high-need students'' rather than to ``rates'' in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e). We also are correcting an error in
paragraph (d)--``career or technical training'' in paragraph (d) should
be ``career and technical training. Therefore, we are making these
changes in the priority.
Changes: We have revised new Priority 8 to read as follows:
Priority 8--Increasing Postsecondary Success
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as
defined in this notice) who are academically prepared for and enroll in
college or other postsecondary education and training.
(b) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as
defined in this notice) who persist in and complete college or other
postsecondary education and training.
(c) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as
defined in this notice) who enroll in and complete high-quality
programs of study (as defined in this notice) designed to lead to a
postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate.
(d) Increasing the number and proportion of individuals who return
to the educational system to obtain a high school diploma; to enroll in
college or other postsecondary education or training; to obtain needed
basic skills leading to success in college or other postsecondary
education or the workforce; or to enter, persist in, and complete
college or rigorous postsecondary career and technical training leading
to a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate.
(e) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as
defined in this notice) who enroll in and complete graduate programs.
(f) Increasing the number and proportion of postsecondary students
who complete college or other postsecondary education and training and
who are demonstrably prepared for successful employment, active
participation in civic life, and lifelong learning.
New Priority 9--Improving Achievement and High School Graduation Rates
(Proposed Priority 6--Improving Achievement and High School Graduation
Rates of Rural and High-Need Students)
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the needs of urban
students were not sufficiently addressed in proposed priority 6 and
recommended that the Department revise it to focus on both urban and
rural students.
Discussion: The intent of this priority is to focus on improving
achievement and high school graduation rates and college enrollment
rates of high-need students, in both urban and rural areas. We
recognize that the title of the proposed priority may have incorrectly
implied that this priority was exclusively focused on students in rural
areas. Therefore, we are removing the reference to rural and high-need
students from the title of the priority.
Changes: We have removed ``of Rural and High-Need Students'' from
the title of the priority. Based on this change, the title of new
Priority 9 now reads: ``Improving Achievement and High School
Graduation Rates.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that this priority include a
focus on students with disabilities, including students with
disabilities who are also gifted. Another commenter recommended adding
a focus on English learners, stating that these students need extra
support to be successful because they must learn English at the same
time they are trying to meet challenging student achievement standards.
Discussion: Although students with disabilities and English
learners are included in the definition of high-need children and high-
need students as examples of students who may be at risk of educational
failure, we understand that there may be programs for which it would be
appropriate to focus particularly on improving achievement and
graduation rates of students with disabilities or English learners, and
not a broader group of high-need students. Therefore, within this
priority, we are adding a separate priority area for students with
disabilities and a separate priority area for English learners.
Changes: We have added a new paragraph (b) to the priority, which
reads as follows: ``Accelerating learning and helping to improve high
school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college
enrollment rates for students with disabilities.'' We also have added a
new paragraph (c), which reads as follows: ``Accelerating learning and
helping to improve high school graduation rates (as defined in this
notice) and college enrollment rates for English learners.'' Subsequent
paragraphs have been renumbered.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for this priority
and recommended specific strategies to improve student achievement and
graduation rates. One commenter suggested that the priority focus on
physical education programs because students in schools with high
poverty rates often do not have access to high-quality physical
education programs. Several commenters recommended focusing on specific
dropout prevention programs. One commenter requested that the priority
focus on programs that support collaboration between education and
juvenile and family justice systems to support students in juvenile
detention centers and students in foster care. One commenter stated
that summer learning programs play a critical role in accelerating
learning for students in rural and high-poverty areas and should be
included in this priority. Two commenters recommended adding language
to provide incentives for schools and districts to implement
initiatives that help high-need students stay in school, such as
programs that provide multiple or alternative pathways to graduation.
One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to
support the development of data collection systems to help school
districts report data, such as graduation rates, more effectively.
Another commenter recommended adding a focus on systems that identify
students at risk of dropping out of school.
Discussion: This priority focuses on outcomes--that is, improving
student achievement and high school graduation rates and college
enrollment rates for students in rural LEAs, students with
disabilities, English learners, other high-need students, and students
in high-poverty schools--rather than on the
[[Page 78498]]
specific strategies for attaining those outcomes. Many of the
strategies proposed by the commenters may accelerate learning and
improve graduation and college enrollment rates. However, we decline to
reference specific strategies in this priority because it would limit
the types of programs to which this priority could be applied. We do
agree that this priority should include a focus on projects that meet
the needs of all students, while ensuring that the specific needs of
high-need students participating in such a project are met. Therefore,
we are adding a new paragraph (f) to focus on projects that accelerate
learning and improve high school graduation rates and college
enrollment rates for all students in an inclusive manner while ensuring
that the specific needs of high-need students are addressed.
Changes: We have added a new paragraph (f) that reads as follows:
``Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school graduation
rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment rates for all
students in an inclusive manner that ensures that the specific needs of
high-need students (as defined in this notice) participating in the
project are addressed.''
Comment: Two commenters recommended revising the priority to
specifically support disadvantaged populations of gifted students.
Discussion: This priority already focuses on the needs of gifted
students who are high-need students at risk of educational failure
(paragraph (d)), as well as students who attend high-poverty schools
(paragraph (e)), which may include gifted students. Therefore, we
decline to make the change recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding a priority to focus on
schools located in areas of concentrated poverty and the students
living in those areas.
Discussion: The groups of students and schools already included in
this priority could encompass schools located in areas of concentrated
poverty and students living in those areas. Because we intend to use
this priority across a number of Department programs, we do not want to
unnecessarily limit its scope by limiting its application to the
specific schools and students suggested by the commenter. Therefore, we
decline to make the change suggested by the commenters.
Changes: None.
New Priority 10 (Proposed Priority 7)--Promoting Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department support
projects that include a focus on providing information to students
about educational and career pathways into STEM fields. According to
the commenter, students need better information about educational
programs that can lead to careers in STEM fields.
Discussion: We agree that providing students with more information
about STEM careers and the pathways to those careers would help
increase students' level of interest in STEM coursework and careers. We
do not think it is necessary to reference this type of activity in the
text of the priority, however, because the priority focuses on the
outcome of increased access to STEM coursework rather than specific
strategies for attaining that outcome. Grant applicants could propose
increasing the amount of information available to students about
educational and career opportunities in the STEM fields as a strategy
for achieving the goal of increased access to STEM coursework.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the priority to
specifically support providing high school students with access to
rigorous and engaging courses of study in STEM. Two commenters
recommended that we revise paragraph (a) of the priority to
specifically identify elementary, middle, and high school students, and
another commenter recommended that we revise the priority to ensure
that it supports early learning in STEM. These commenters stated that
if students have access to STEM content early in their education, they
are more likely to pursue STEM opportunities at the postsecondary level
and STEM careers. Another commenter recommended that the Department
revise the priority to support projects that provide gifted and
talented students with access to rigorous and engaging STEM courses as
soon as those students are academically ready for such coursework. The
commenter stated that students should be permitted to take STEM-related
coursework as early as possible in their education in order to ensure
that the Nation has a sufficient number of STEM professionals in the
future. Another commenter recommended that we revise the priority to
reference underrepresented and high-need students.
Discussion: Our intent in paragraph (a) of this priority is to
support access to rigorous and engaging courses of study in STEM for
all students, including students in elementary, middle, and high
schools; gifted and talented students; and high-need students. We agree
that providing these students with access to STEM-related coursework is
essential to increasing the number of students prepared for
postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM fields. However,
the Department plans to use these priorities across a number of its
discretionary grant programs, and some of those programs may not
support a focus on particular groups of students. Accordingly, we
decline to narrow the scope of paragraph (a), as suggested by the
commenters. The priority does not preclude an applicant from focusing
its project on increasing access to STEM coursework for specific groups
of students, provided such a focus is authorized by the program statute
and regulations.
In reviewing these comments, however, we noted that our use of the
term ``courses of study'' in paragraph (a) of the priority could be
read to refer to STEM courses that are offered only after elementary
school. Given that this is not our intention and to eliminate any
confusion, we have revised the priority to refer to ``coursework''
rather than to ``courses of study'' to clarify that paragraph (a)
refers to all students regardless of their level of education.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (a) of the priority to delete
the reference to ``courses of study'' and replaced it with ``coursework
in STEM.'' Specifically, paragraph (a) reads: ``Providing students with
increased access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM.''
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department revise
paragraph (c) of the priority, which provides for increasing the
opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional
development for, teachers of STEM subjects, to refer to a broader group
of education professionals who could benefit from professional
development in this area. The commenters suggested that we use the term
``educator'' rather than ``teacher.''
Discussion: We agree that it is important to support all types of
educators who work in STEM fields. Accordingly, we have revised the
priority to include a reference to other educators in the STEM fields.
Changes: We have added ``or other educators'' following
``teachers'' in paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) of the priority reads as
follows: ``Increasing the
[[Page 78499]]
opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional
development for, teachers or other educators of STEM subjects.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that we add a priority area for
increasing opportunities for collaboration related to STEM-focused
initiatives, projects, and programs among military and civilian
research centers, institutions of higher education, LEAs, non-profit
organizations, museums, and other partners engaged in STEM fields.
Discussion: As stated in the NPP, we agree that such collaborations
can be important and effective strategies for increasing the number of
students prepared for postsecondary study in STEM and for assisting
teachers in providing effective STEM instruction. We decline to make
the suggested change, however, because the priority emphasizes the
outcomes to be achieved rather than specific strategies for attaining
those outcomes. We note that the priority does not preclude an
applicant from proposing a project that focuses on these types of
collaborations. Collaborations with STEM organizations could be
proposed as a strategy for achieving the outcomes called for in the
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department revise the
priority to include a specific reference to career and technical
education courses. The commenters stated that many career and technical
education programs include STEM-focused instruction and can be used to
help students acquire knowledge and skills in a variety of STEM fields,
including preparing students for postsecondary studies and careers in
STEM fields. Another commenter recommended that we revise the priority
to support career and technical education programs that encourage women
to go into high-earning careers; the commenter stated that many women
are directed to career and technical education professions that have
been traditionally occupied by women, such as cosmetology and
childcare, which also tend to be lower-paying professions.
Discussion: We agree that career and technical education courses
can be instrumental in preparing students for postsecondary study and
careers in STEM fields. However, we do not believe it is necessary to
specifically mention career and technical education courses in the
priority. As indicated earlier in this notice, our intent is to use
this priority across a number of different Department programs, some of
which may not permit a focus on career and technical education courses,
and we do not wish to unnecessarily limit the scope of this priority
and risk precluding applicants in some Department programs from
addressing it.
We also agree that the underrepresentation of women and girls in
certain STEM fields is a significant problem. Paragraph (b) of the
priority was designed to address that concern by encouraging a focus on
increasing the participation of students from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM careers, including women. However, upon
further reflection, we believe that, rather than focusing on increasing
the number of students from groups traditionally underrepresented in
STEM careers only in paragraph (b) (with regard to postsecondary and
graduate study and careers in STEM), there should be a similar emphasis
with regard to increasing access to rigorous and engaging coursework in
STEM (paragraph (a)) and with regard to increasing opportunities for
high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers
or other educators of STEM subjects (paragraph (c)). Therefore, we are
adding two new paragraphs that focus on individuals from groups
traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, and removing the
reference to such individuals in paragraph (b). New paragraph (d)
focuses on increasing the number of students from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM who are provided with access to rigorous and
engaging coursework in STEM or who are prepared for postsecondary or
graduate study and careers in STEM; and new paragraph (e) focuses on
increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects
and who have increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or
professional development.
Changes: We have added a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
``Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are provided with access to rigorous and
engaging coursework in STEM or who are prepared for postsecondary or
graduate study and careers in STEM.''
We have added a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: ``Increasing
the number of individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in
STEM, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women,
who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects and have increased
opportunities for high-quality preparation or professional
development.''
We have removed the following from paragraph (b): ``With a specific
focus on an increase in the number and proportion of students so
prepared who are from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM
careers, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and
women.''
Comment: While several commenters supported this priority and noted
the importance of ensuring that students have access to STEM coursework
well before entering college, one commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to focus on both the preparation for and
the completion of graduate degrees in STEM fields.
Discussion: The priority supports both the preparation and the
completion of postsecondary or graduate study in STEM. Specifically,
paragraph (b) of the priority emphasizes increasing the number of
students prepared for postsecondary and graduate study and careers in
STEM. Thus, the language supporting increasing the number of students
prepared for careers in STEM already supports projects that are
designed to increase the number of students completing their
postgraduate studies in STEM.
During the Department's review of the NPP, we determined that the
phrase ``advanced postsecondary or graduate study'' in paragraph (b)
was vague and confusing. Therefore, we are removing the word
``advanced'' from paragraph (b). We also determined that, rather than
focusing only on increasing the number of students prepared for
postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM that the priority
should also focus on increasing the proportion of those students. We
are, therefore, making these changes in paragraph (b).
Changes: In paragraph (b), we have removed ``advanced'' before
``postsecondary''; and added ``and proportion'' before ``of students
prepared for''. With this change and the changes noted in response to
an earlier comment, paragraph (b) now reads: ``Increasing the number
and proportion of students prepared for postsecondary or graduate study
and careers in STEM.''
Comment: One commenter applauded the Department's focus on issues
affecting underrepresented students in STEM fields. The commenter
suggested, however, that the Department narrow its focus to address
specific achievement gaps between males and females in general, and
between minority males and white males, in particular. The commenter
stated that minority males in particular face access, academic success,
[[Page 78500]]
and persistence difficulties when they enter the STEM fields.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support and recognize the
seriousness of these achievement gaps. Our intent under paragraph (b)
of the priority was to address those gaps by supporting projects that
are designed to increase the representation of all students from groups
traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, including minorities,
individuals with disabilities, and women. As noted in response to an
earlier comment, we are removing the reference to increasing the number
of students from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers
who are prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in
STEM in paragraph (b) and adding it in new paragraph (d). We think the
priority, as we have revised it, addresses these gaps and do not
believe it is necessary to identify achievement gaps involving specific
populations in order to provide support for strategies that can serve
to narrow these achievement gaps.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that we revise the priority to
include support for increasing the actual number of STEM teachers in
addition to increasing the opportunities for the preparation of, or
providing professional development for, teachers of STEM subjects. The
commenters stated that STEM subjects are difficult to staff with
qualified teachers and, therefore, there should be an emphasis on
increasing the actual number of teachers in STEM fields.
Discussion: We recognize that some LEAs struggle to recruit and
retain a sufficient number of teachers with the knowledge and skills
required to teach STEM content. Paragraph (c) of the priority is
designed to address that problem because it focuses on increasing the
support provided to teachers of STEM subjects so that they are
adequately prepared to provide effective instruction to students. We
believe that increasing these types of opportunities for STEM teachers
and other educators will lead to increases in the actual numbers of
teachers and other educators prepared to teach and improve student
achievement in STEM subjects.
We do not believe it is necessary, therefore, to revise the
priority as suggested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
paragraph (c) of the priority to specify that the opportunities for
preparation of or professional development for teachers of STEM
subjects be designed to equip teachers with the knowledge, skills, and
abilities to address the diverse learning and support service needs of
high-need students in teachers' classrooms.
Discussion: We agree that it is important that STEM teachers have
the knowledge and skills needed to address the learning needs of high-
need students, as well as the needs of all other students. However, as
indicated earlier, because we plan to use these priorities across a
number of our discretionary grant programs, it would not be appropriate
to focus on a particular group of students or a particular type of
activity. As written, the priority does not preclude an applicant from
focusing its project on the type of professional development or teacher
preparation mentioned by the commenter provided that this focus is
authorized under the applicable program statute and regulations.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority include a focus
on improving online access to STEM courses. The commenter noted that
providing online courses in STEM and improving access to those courses
could provide a solution to the shortage of STEM teachers.
Discussion: We agree that the use of online STEM courses could be
effective in increasing students' access to this coursework and that,
at least in part the availability of these courses could address the
challenges that certain LEAs face in recruiting and retaining STEM
teachers. However, we do not believe it is necessary to include a
separate priority area supporting online STEM courses since our intent
under this priority is to support all types of strategies that may be
effective in increasing student access to STEM instructional content.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the
priority to promote increased access to the full range of tools and
processes employed by STEM educators, including access to experts in
STEM via online and distance learning coursework.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that current and
prospective STEM educators need a full range of resources and supports
as they prepare for teaching STEM subjects or to enhance their teaching
skills. We think this objective is addressed in the language in
paragraph (c) and new paragraph (e) of the priority regarding
increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or
professional development for, teachers or other educators of STEM
subjects.
Changes: None.
New Priority 11 (Proposed Priority 8)--Promoting Diversity
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for this priority,
noting the importance of diversity generally and, more specifically,
the educational benefits that inure to students in diverse learning
environments. Several commenters recommended that the Department expand
the definition of ``diversity'' or mention additional groups. For
example, a number of these commenters suggested adding lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender students as examples of a diverse student
body. Several commenters recommended that the Department include gender
as an additional example of students within a diverse student body. One
commenter recommended that the Department include gifted students as
part of the priority. Another commenter recommended that the priority
include students of different socioeconomic status. Two commenters
recommended that the Department revise the priority to include students
with disabilities and English learners.
Several commenters recommended that the Department expand the
priority to include support for diversity among teachers and other
school staff. One commenter recommended that the Department revise the
priority to encourage diversity in early learning providers.
One commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority
to require charter schools to promote student diversity. Another
commenter suggested that the Department revise the priority to promote
diversity in the academic and societal preparation of our youth. One
commenter recommended that the Department revise the priority to
provide examples of programs that would be supported under this
priority.
Discussion: The Department agrees that school, teacher, and school
staff diversity is important. The intent of this priority, however, is
to focus on the racial and ethnic diversity of students in order to
promote cross-racial understanding, break down racial stereotypes, and
prepare students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society.
Therefore, we decline to expand the definition of ``diversity'' or
mention the additional groups that commenters recommended. The priority
does not preclude programs that focus on teacher diversity, so long as
they also focus on student diversity.
[[Page 78501]]
We intend to use this priority across a number of different
Department programs. Therefore, we do not wish to unnecessarily narrow
the focus of the priority or limit its applicability by adding specific
age ranges or referring to specific types of schools or programs in the
priority.
Changes: None.
New Priority 12 (Proposed Priority 9)--Support for Military Families
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for this priority. These
commenters noted that the families of men and women in the military
face unique challenges requiring specific types of support to ensure
successful educational outcomes. Two commenters recommended including
in the priority examples of strategies to support students whose
parents are in the military. Many commenters noted that an effective
strategy is creating a year-round program for military families.
Another commenter suggested expanding the priority to include supports
for students inside and outside of the classroom that are school- and
community-based (e.g., school health and counseling clinics, family
resource centers, tutoring programs).
One commenter requested that the Department clarify whether the
term military-connected student includes a student with at least one
parent who is in the military, regardless of whether the student
resides with the parent. Another commenter commended the Department for
including a priority on military-connected students and recommended
that the broadest definition of ``pre-kindergarten'' be applied to
include children from birth through kindergarten.
Discussion: We recognize that military deployments place an
enormous strain on military families and their children. However, we
decline to make the changes recommended by the commenters because we do
not want to unnecessarily limit the scope of this priority given our
intent to use this priority across different Department programs. We
note that this priority would not preclude an applicant from proposing
the types of projects suggested by the commenters, provided that the
proposal is authorized by the program statute and regulations.
With respect to the definition of military-connected student, we
are making a number of changes based on the comments we received. We
agree with the commenter that the definition of military-connected
student should apply to children from birth through grade 12 and are
adding language to refer to a child participating in an early learning
program. We are also replacing ``pre-kindergarten'' with ``preschool''
in order to be more inclusive of a broader group of children; ``pre-
kindergarten'' generally refers to children between four and six years
of age, while ``preschool'' generally refers to children between
infancy and school age. In response to comments regarding the unique
challenges faced by the families of men and women in the military, we
are adding the spouse of an active-duty service member to the
definition of military-connected student. Finally, as described earlier
in this notice, we agree with commenters that it is important to
increase the number of current service members and post-9/11 veterans,
who enroll in, persist in, and complete college or other postsecondary
training and, therefore, are revising the definition of military-
connected students to add this reference.
With regard to the commenter who asked for clarification regarding
whether a student must reside with the parent who is in the military to
be considered a ``military-connected student,'' the definition of
military-connected student does not require a student to reside with
the parent who is on active duty in the military to be considered a
``military-connected student.''
Changes: We have revised the definition of military-connected
student to read as follows: Military-connected student means (a) a
child participating in an early learning program, a student in pre-
school through grade 12, or a student enrolled in postsecondary
education or training who has a parent or guardian on active duty in
the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101, in the Army, Navy,
Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard, or the reserve
component of any of the aforementioned services) or (b) a student who
is a veteran of the uniformed services, who is on active duty, or who
is the spouse of an active-duty service member.
New Priority 13 (Proposed Priority 10)--Enabling More Data-Based
Decision-Making
Comment: While many commenters supported this priority, several
commenters requested that the priority include the specific types of
data to be collected and disaggregated. One commenter suggested
collecting health outcomes data in addition to academic data. Many
commenters stated that in order to make decisions about the best
strategies for improving learning environments, demographic information
about sexual orientation, gender identity, and student diversity should
be collected. One commenter recommended collecting data on highly
mobile students and military-connected students. Another commenter
recommended collecting data on gifted and talented students. One
commenter stated that the Department should provide a competitive
preference for projects that collect and disaggregate data that can be
used to address achievement gaps across student subgroups. Another
commenter recommended adding language to the priority to highlight the
need for high-quality, timely, and disaggregated data. Several
commenters stated that having additional data on school climate issues,
such as bullying, violence, and substance abuse, would help educators
identify strategies to improve the school climate for all students.
Discussion: Our intent is to use this priority across a number of
different Department programs to encourage applicants to think
strategically and innovatively about what data are available to a
specific project and how best to use those data to improve student
outcomes. We decline to make the changes recommended by the commenters
because doing so would unnecessarily limit the nature and scope of the
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the priority should emphasize
the importance of protecting the privacy of student and educator data
and recommended revising the definition of privacy requirements to
include educator privacy in addition to student privacy.
Discussion: While we agree that the privacy of teachers and
principals must be protected, we note that there are no Federal privacy
requirements specifically targeted to teachers or principals that would
apply to data collected through programs that are funded using these
priorities. The definition of privacy requirements in this notice
refers to the requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act (FERPA), which apply to the disclosure of information from
education records of students, the Privacy Act of 1974, and all
applicable Federal, State, and local requirements regarding privacy. We
expect all grantees to abide by all applicable Federal, State, or local
laws and requirements regarding the privacy of educators.
Changes: None.
Comments: We received numerous comments recommending that the
priority focus on collecting and analyzing data that can be used to
support particular groups of
[[Page 78502]]
individuals. For example, several commenters emphasized the need for
parents to have data that will help them make informed decisions about
their child's education. Two commenters encouraged the Department to
focus the priority on training for parents on how to effectively access
and use data. Another commenter recommended revising the priority to
include a focus on child and family outcomes and not just student
outcomes.
We also received a number of comments requesting that the priority
focus on collecting and analyzing data that will help teachers. Two
commenters recommended that the priority support ongoing professional
development for teachers on how to use research and data to improve
practices and strategies in the classroom. One commenter recommended
focusing the priority on projects that train teachers to use student
outcomes as a measure of teacher effectiveness. Another commenter
suggested that the priority be targeted to support training for school
board members, administrators, and other school personnel.
Discussion: We believe that it is essential for parents to be
involved with their child's education and to be aware of the data that
are being collected and used by schools to make educational decisions.
Likewise, the Department agrees that teachers need high-quality and
timely data, and training on the use of that data, to help improve
their instruction and student outcomes. We purposefully refer to
``program participant outcomes'' in the priority because we anticipate
using this priority across a number of programs in the Department and
do not want to limit the focus of this priority to student outcomes
when we have a wide range of participants, including parents and
teachers, involved in the Department's programs. Furthermore, program
participants are generally defined in the authorizing legislation of a
program; thus, Department officials who use this priority will define
in their notices inviting applications the program participants for
their particular grant program. Therefore, we decline to make the
changes suggested by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters recommended that the priority focus on
the various stakeholders that would be involved in the analysis of data
to improve outcomes for participants. One commenter recommended that
the priority provide support for intermediary organizations, such as
research institutions, coalitions, community organizations,
constituents, and peers, to collect, interpret, synthesize, and share
research knowledge.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters on the
importance of promoting collaboration among education agencies,
research institutions, community organizations, and other stakeholders.
However, we decline to add the recommended language to this priority
because we do not want to unnecessarily limit its scope. This priority
would not preclude an applicant from proposing this type of
collaboration among stakeholders provided that such collaboration was
authorized by the program statute and regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters recommended that the Department
provide specific performance metrics that would be used to judge the
progress of grants awarded under this priority. Another commenter
recommended requiring postsecondary grantees that receive awards under
this priority to report on common metrics for the completion of
postsecondary degrees.
Discussion: We appreciate the need for establishing metrics to
measure the success of our programs and specific projects. However,
under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, each of the
Department's discretionary grant programs has already established
performance measures for that purpose, which are specific to the goals
of and activities supported by those programs. We believe that these
program-specific measures will provide an appropriate means of
analyzing the success of those programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department use
this priority to emphasize the sharing of data between data systems at
State agencies, institutions of higher education, and districts. The
commenters argued this sharing would help to bring all stakeholders
``to the table'' to develop integrated data systems for students from
pre-kindergarten through college. However, one commenter suggested
refocusing the emphasis from State longitudinal data systems for
accountability purposes to data for local classroom instructional
purposes.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that the sharing of data
between data systems at State agencies, institutions of higher
education, and districts is important in order to strengthen
accountability and obtain the accurate and reliable data necessary to
drive sound educational decisions. We believe that the focus on using
data from State longitudinal data systems in paragraph (d) sufficiently
emphasizes the importance of sharing data between these data systems
and, therefore, decline to add the language recommended by the
commenter. However, we agree that it would be appropriate to emphasize
the use of data from State longitudinal data systems and are revising
paragraph (d) accordingly.
With regard to the recommendation to refocus State longitudinal
data systems for accountability purposes to data for instructional
purposes, paragraph (d) specifically focuses on State-level data that
would appropriately be provided by a State's longitudinal data system.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) could be used for programs that focus on using
data for instructional purposes.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (d), which reads as follows:
``Providing reliable and comprehensive information on the
implementation of Department of Education programs, and participant
outcomes in these programs, by using data from State longitudinal data
systems or by obtaining data from reliable third-party sources.''
Comment: None.
Discussion: During our review of this notice, we identified several
errors in this priority. In the introduction, we intended the priority
to permit projects to focus on ``one or more'' of the priority areas
(a) through (d), rather than on just one of the priority areas.
Therefore, we are changing ``one of the following priority areas'' to
``one or more of the following priority areas.'' In paragraph (a),
which relates to early learning settings, we should have referred to
``child outcomes'' instead of ``student outcomes,'' and are making this
change accordingly. Finally, we intended paragraph (b) to provide the
option for an applicant to focus on improving instructional practices,
policies, and student outcomes in elementary or secondary schools,
rather than elementary and secondary schools. Therefore, we are
changing the ``and'' to an ``or'' in paragraph (b).
Changes: In the introduction to the priority, we have changed ``one
of the following priority areas'' to ``one or more of the following
priority areas.'' In paragraph (a), we have changed ``student
outcomes'' to ``child outcomes.'' ``Elementary and secondary schools''
has been changed to ``elementary or secondary schools'' in paragraph
(b).
With these changes and those noted earlier, priority 13 reads as
follows:
``Priority 13--Enabling More Data-Based Decision-Making.
[[Page 78503]]
Projects that are designed to collect (or obtain), analyze, and use
high-quality and timely data, including data on program participant
outcomes, in accordance with privacy requirements (as defined in this
notice), in one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Improving instructional practices, policies, and child outcomes
in early learning settings.
(b) Improving instructional practices, policies, and student
outcomes in elementary or secondary schools.
(c) Improving postsecondary student outcomes relating to
enrollment, persistence, and completion and leading to career success.
(d) Providing reliable and comprehensive information on the
implementation of Department of Education programs, and participant
outcomes in these programs by using data from State longitudinal data
systems or by obtaining data from reliable third-party sources.''
Priority 14 (Proposed Priority 11)--Building Evidence of Effectiveness
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for proposed Priority 11
(new Priority 14). One commenter suggested that this priority be used
in all grant programs. Several commenters agreed with the Department's
position that while experimental and quasi-experimental designs provide
the most rigorous evidence of a program's impact and should be used
when feasible, such research designs are not always feasible and other
designs may be more appropriate for the question being asked. One
commenter stated that this flexibility allows for smaller programs and
projects to be evaluated even though they may not have the number of
participants needed for a random assignment or quasi-experimental
research design. One commenter recommended being more explicit in the
priority regarding this flexibility. However, one commenter stated that
the priority places too narrow an emphasis on analyses from a limited
set of highly controlled experimental and quasi-experimental designed
studies and as a result would not recognize the work of school-level
practitioners and others. The commenter recommended revising proposed
Priority 11 (new Priority 14) to include various measures of student
achievement and require the use of readily available data in schools
and districts. The commenter pointed to programs where a project would
not meet the proposed definitions of strong evidence and moderate
evidence, and concluded that the proposed priority failed to take into
account many district and school practices, which would be
counterproductive to the identification of effective techniques,
strategies, and methods. The commenter proposed incorporating a new
category of ``Promising Evidence'' that reflects various measures of
student achievement and progress more readily available in schools and
districts. Another commenter argued that experimental research design
is not always conducive to studying complex educational issues or areas
of innovation.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the proposed
priority and for using other rigorous evaluation methods when it is not
feasible to use experimental and quasi-experimental research designs.
We do not, however, agree with the one commenter's suggestion that we
be more explicit in the priority regarding this ``flexibility.'' Nor do
we agree with the commenter that this priority is too narrow and
restrictive.
When taken together, new Priorities, 13, 14, and 15 (proposed
Priorities 10, 11, and 12, respectively), along with the Department's
notice of final priority on scientifically based evaluation methods,
published on January 25, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 3586),
provide an appropriate, flexible spectrum of approaches for taking into
account evidence in competitive grant programs.
New Priority 15 (proposed Priority 12) (Supporting Programs,
Practices, or Strategies for which there is Strong or Moderate Evidence
of Effectiveness) asks applicants to provide strong or moderate
evidence to support their proposals. By contrast, new Priorities 13 and
14 (proposed Priorities 10 and 11, respectively), and the Department's
2005 notice of final priority on scientifically based evaluation
methods focus on developing and using evidence during the life of the
project and beyond.
New Priority 13 (proposed Priority 10) (Enabling More Data-Based
Decision-Making) encourages applicants to collect, analyze, and use
data to improve practices, policies, and outcomes, and build evidence
into program operations and improvement.
New Priority 14 (proposed Priority 11) (Building Evidence of
Effectiveness) encourages applicants to evaluate their programs.
Recognizing that it is not always feasible or appropriate to use
experimental and quasi-experimental research designs, new Priority 14
encourages the use of methods likely to produce valid and reliable
results, and requires, at a minimum, that the outcome of interest be
measured multiple times before and after the treatment for project
participants and, where feasible, for a comparison group of non-
participants.
The Department expects that grants made pursuant to new Priority 14
will use the most rigorous evaluations feasible to provide the
strongest available empirical evidence of the impact of programs. The
Department considers random assignment and quasi-experimental designs
to be the most defensible methods for addressing the question of
project effectiveness in that they reliably produce an unbiased
estimate of effectiveness and should be the preferred method of
determining effectiveness when sufficient numbers of participants are
available to support these designs. Random assignment and quasi-
experimental designs are considered the most rigorous models for
producing evidence of the impact of a program because they are best
able to eliminate plausible competing explanations for observed
results. The Department's notice of final priority on scientifically
based evaluation methods allowed the Department to expand the number of
programs and projects Department-wide that are evaluated using
experimental and quasi-experimental designs. This priority remains in
effect; however, acknowledging that the use of such research designs is
not always feasible or appropriate, the Department would use Priority
14 to support studies using other rigorous evaluation methods
consistent with the principles of scientific research. Given the
spectrum of approaches for taking into account evidence across these
priorities, we do not agree with the commenter's recommendation to
incorporate a ``Promising Evidence'' category.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter applauded the inclusion of this priority but
recommended that the Department reserve the highest percentage of
available funds for grants to support programs that are evaluated
through rigorous randomized control studies or high-quality comparison
group studies.
Discussion: It would not be appropriate to use this notice to
specify how the funds that are appropriated for a particular
discretionary grant program will be spent; such decisions are made by
the Department consistent with the statute and regulations under which
a program is authorized.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters asserted that the proposed priority was
not specific enough and stated that we also should include references
to using data to improve early learning, teacher effectiveness,
sexuality education, or summer programs, and to evaluate
[[Page 78504]]
school-based delinquency, truancy, or bullying prevention programs.
Another commenter requested further clarification on outcome measures
because the priority did not seem to reference context, process, or
formative data as components of an evaluation plan.
Discussion: We purposefully did not include in the priority the
level of specificity suggested by the commenters because our intent is
to use this priority across a number of different Department programs.
By not defining the participants or strategies, we will be able to use
this priority in programs across the Department. Each time we do so, we
intend to provide further clarification to applicants about the
expectations of the evaluation plan, including on data usage and
program focus, and further clarification on how we will review those
plans.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested defining the term ``scientifically
valid research'' and recommended using the definition provided in the
HEA.
Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to include a
definition of ``scientifically valid research'' as this term is not
used in these priorities. We believe the definitions included in this
notice, which are in the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards
(see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1), and the Department's notice of final
priority on scientifically based evaluation methods provide sufficient
guidance regarding the use of scientifically based research in
evaluating whether a project produces meaningful effects on student
achievement or teacher performance.
Changes: None.
New Priority 15 (Proposed Priority 12)--Supporting Programs, Practices,
or Strategies for Which There Is Strong or Moderate Evidence of
Effectiveness
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for this priority and
the requirement for strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. One
commenter agreed with the Department's approach to award more points to
a project supported by strong evidence when compared to a project
supported by moderate evidence. One commenter recommended including
guidance in the priority on how applicants should move from research to
strategy implementation on a large scale.
Discussion: The Department appreciates this support from
commenters. The intent of this priority, as one of several addressing
levels of evidence, is to support projects that use moderate or strong
levels of evidence. We believe that the field of education needs to use
the best available evidence to inform policy and practices and, where
strong evidence does not exist, to build evidence over time. This
priority will be applied to programs where we believe that
implementation of activities or strategies supported by strong and
moderate evidence is possible.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that small organizations
and nonprofit organizations lack the evaluation resources to conduct
studies that meet the threshold established for strong and moderate
evidence, thereby resulting in an unfair advantage for larger school
districts and organizations.
Discussion: While it is true that small organizations, nonprofit
organizations, and school districts may not have the resources to
conduct evaluation studies that meet the evidence threshold established
in this priority, applicants may be able to satisfy this priority by
using third-party studies to demonstrate that the program or strategies
they are using are supported by moderate or strong evidence. The
practice, strategy, or program does not have to be one that was
developed by the district or nonprofit organization.
Changes: None.
Priority 16 (Proposed Priority 13)--Improving Productivity
Comment: Several commenters supported the inclusion of a priority
focused on improving productivity and making more efficient use of
time, money, and staff. One commenter recognized the importance of
efficiency and effectiveness in all aspects of the education system and
that improving productivity is an important goal in education. Several
commenters suggested particular strategies for improving productivity
that applicants should implement in order to meet the requirements of
this priority. Two commenters stressed the importance of partnerships
and collaboration in improving productivity and recommended including
language encouraging partnerships with such entities as institutions of
higher education, nonprofit organizations, city and county governments,
businesses, parents, educators, and unions representing educators. One
commenter suggested including ``staff wellness/staff satisfaction''
programs as a means of improving productivity. One commenter suggested
that this priority be paired with broader values, such as improving
teaching and learning conditions. Another commenter stated that summer
school provides an ideal opportunity to test innovative practices in
staffing, scheduling, and community partnering. Another commenter
recommended adding specific performance benchmarks and indicators to
the priority statement.
Discussion: We appreciate the support that commenters expressed for
this priority. As previously stated in this notice, the intent of these
priorities is to apply one or more of the priorities to various
programs across the Department in order to encourage applicants to
develop innovative strategies to meet the priority within the context
of the program. Priorities will only be used for a program where the
Department determines the priority to be consistent with the purpose of
the program and permitted under the applicable statute and regulations.
We choose not to restrict applicants to specific strategies, such as
those suggested by the commenters, but encourage grantees to develop
innovative practices that will best improve results and increase
productivity for their unique educational situation. Each of the
Department's discretionary grant programs is required to have specific
performance measures and indicators that help determine the impact of
the program. Because indicators are program specific, the Department
does not believe it is necessary to include benchmarks in this
priority.
During the Department's internal review of this notice, we
determined that the focus of new Priority 16 could be stated more
clearly. Therefore, we are making slight changes to the language in
this priority and adding modification of teacher compensation systems
as an example of a strategy to make more efficient use of time, money,
and staff.
Changes: We have revised new Priority 16 to read as follows:
``Projects that are designed to significantly increase efficiency
in the use of time, staff, money, or other resources in order to
improve results and increase productivity. Such projects may include
innovative and sustainable uses of technology, modification of school
schedules and teacher compensation systems, and use of open educational
resources (as defined in this notice), or other strategies.''
Definitions
Graduation Rate
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the definition
of graduation rate would not permit all States and districts to use an
extended graduation rate for students who need
[[Page 78505]]
more than four years to graduate with a regular high school diploma.
Discussion: We believe it is important to be consistent with the
definition of graduation rate in 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1), which permits the
use of an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate if the State in
which the proposed project is implemented has been approved by the
Secretary pursuant to that regulation to use such a rate.
Changes: None.
High-Need Children and High-Need Students
Comment: The Department received numerous comments recommending
that the definition of high-need children and high-need students
include references to additional sub-groups of students. One commenter
recommended adding Native American students and another commenter
recommended adding students from racial minority groups with persistent
achievement gaps and students who are new immigrants to the United
States whose education has been inadequate or interrupted. Two
commenters recommended adding highly mobile students and migratory
students to this definition. Several commenters recommended including
students who are gifted, especially those traditionally
underrepresented in gifted education programs, such as students from
low-socioeconomic backgrounds, students with disabilities, and English
learners. Another commenter recommended adding students who are
underrepresented in an academic program, such as minorities and women
in STEM fields. One commenter recommended including students with
parents who have the same characteristics as high-need children and
students, for example, students with parents who are English learners
or who are incarcerated. Another commenter recommended adding pregnant
and parenting students because of the barriers they face in enrolling,
attending, and succeeding in school.
Discussion: The groups identified in the definition of high-need
children and high-need students are examples of children and students
who may be at risk of educational failure. The examples are provided
for illustrative purposes only and are not meant to exclude other
subgroups of students who may be at risk of educational failure. It is
not practical or possible to include in the definition all the
subgroups of students recommended by the commenters. We believe that it
is appropriate to add students who are pregnant or parenting teenagers
and students who are new immigrants and migrant students to call
attention to the needs of these particular groups of students. We also
believe that many of the groups of students that commenters recommended
including in the definition would fall into the category of students
who are not on track to becoming college- or career-ready by graduation
and are at risk of educational failure and are, therefore, adding
language to that effect in the definition.
Changes: We have added students who are pregnant or parenting
teenagers, students who are new immigrants, students who are migrant,
and students who are not on track to becoming college- or career-ready
by graduation to the definition. We are also changing ``English
language learners'' to ``English learners.''
Comment: None.
Discussion: The proposed definition of high-need children and high-
need students referred to children and students at risk of educational
failure ``or otherwise in need of special assistance and support.''
Upon further reflection, we believe that the phrase ``or otherwise in
need of special assistance and support'' is confusing and detracts from
the intended focus of the priority on children and students who are at
risk of educational failure. Therefore, we are removing this phrase
from the definition. We also are adding language to clarify that
students who have left school include students who have left college
before receiving a college degree or certificate.
Changes: We have removed the phrase ``or otherwise in need of
special assistance and support'' from the definition of high-need
children and high-need students. We have replaced ``who have left
school before receiving a regular high school diploma'' to ``who have
left school or college before receiving, respectively, a regular high
school diploma or a college degree or certificate.''
High-Poverty School
Comment: One commenter expressed support for allowing middle and
high schools to use data from feeder schools to demonstrate that they
are high-poverty schools. The commenter noted that students in middle
and high school are often reluctant to admit that they qualify for the
free or reduced-price lunch program and that by defining a high-poverty
school based on comparable data gathered at feeder schools, the
Department would be able to reach more students in need. Several
commenters requested that the definition of a high-poverty school be
changed to mean a school with at least 40 percent of students eligible
for the free or reduced-price lunch program, instead of 50 percent.
Discussion: We decline to change the definition of high-poverty
school to mean a school with at least 40 percent of students eligible
for the free or reduced-price lunch program. Changing the definition in
this manner would greatly increase the number of schools designated as
``high-poverty schools'' and would be inconsistent with the intent of
new Priority 9 (proposed priority 6), which is to target resources on a
limited number of schools that have the greatest need. With regard to
the recommendation to permit the poverty rate for middle and high
schools to be based on school lunch data for their feeder elementary
schools, the proposed priority specifically allowed the calculation to
be made on that basis.
Changes: None.
Open Educational Resources
Comment: Many commenters supported including a reference to open
educational resources in proposed Priority 13 (new Priority 16). Two
commenters recommended revising the definition of this term to include
language that makes clear that resources released under an intellectual
property license should permit sharing, accessing, repurposing
(including for commercial purposes), and collaborating with others.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for including
open educational resources in proposed Priority 13 (new Priority 16).
We believe that the proposed definition of open educational resources
includes the characteristics of open educational resources that the
commenters recommended including in the definition and, therefore, do
not believe it is necessary to change the definition in the manner
recommended by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
Comment: Several commenters recommended revising the definition of
persistently lowest-achieving schools in ways that would expand the
number of schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving. Two
commenters recommended that the definition be expanded to include
support for other low-performing schools and for schools at risk of
becoming low-performing. One commenter recommended revising the
definition to include schools that have a high rate of student or
teacher turnover. Another commenter stated that States and LEAs should
have the
[[Page 78506]]
flexibility to define persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Discussion: As stated earlier, our intention with Priority 4 is to
support projects that will serve the lowest-achieving schools in our
Nation. Accordingly, we used the definition of persistently lowest-
achieving schools that is consistent with the definition used in the
Department's SIG program authorized under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
Given this focus in Priority 4, we decline to make the changes
recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Rural Local Educational Agency
Comment: Several commenters noted that proposed Priority 6 (new
Priority 9) (Improving Achievement and High School Graduation Rates)
refers to students in rural communities and requested that the notice
include a definition of ``rural community.''
Discussion: We have changed ``rural community'' to ``rural local
educational agency'' in new Priority 9 (proposed Priority 6) in order
to be clear about the focus of paragraph (a) in this priority on
students attending schools in rural local educational agencies. We,
therefore, are adding a definition of rural local educational agency
that is based on the definitions under the Small Rural School
Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS)
program.
Changes: We have added the following definition: ``Rural local
educational agency means a local educational agency (LEA) that is
eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the
Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI,
Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine whether a
particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to
information on the Department's Web site at: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.''
Strong Evidence
Comment: One commenter stated that additional language is needed in
the definition of strong evidence to indicate that programs and
projects that have been the subject of experimental and quasi-
experimental studies with small sample sizes that limit
generalizability, such as those potentially used in rural or remote
areas, are considered to have strong evidence if they have been the
subject of more than one well-designed and well-implemented study that
supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program.
Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to add language to
the definition of strong evidence as recommended by the commenter. The
definition of strong evidence includes evidence based on more than one
well-designed and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental
study that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or
program. The language specifies that the ``studies that in total
include enough of the range of participants and settings to support
``scaling up'' to the State, regional, or national level (i.e., studies
with high external validity)'' could include evaluations of a practice,
strategy, or program in multiple rural sites even though each site may
include small numbers of students. On this basis, an applicant could,
for example, propose to scale up a practice, strategy, or program in
rural settings within a State or region or at the national level.
Changes: None.
Student Achievement
Comment: We received a number of comments regarding the ``other
measures of learning'' referenced in the proposed definition of student
achievement. Some commenters recommended including references to
advanced placement exam scores; others recommended using ACT or SAT
scores, or scores on tests that result in the awarding of college
credit. One commenter recommended that the definition include non-
academic factors such as peer, parent, and student evaluations;
attendance rates; and rates of participation in extracurricular
activities.
Discussion: The proposed definition of student achievement already
includes examples of other measures of student learning and performance
measures. We, therefore, do not believe it is necessary to include the
measures recommended by commenters. We also note that the nonacademic
factors recommended by one commenter would generally not be acceptable
measures of student learning as the definition requires that other
measures of student achievement be rigorous and comparable across
schools.
Changes: None.
Student Growth
Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of student growth
should be changed to refer to students participating in academic
programs where those individuals are from underrepresented groups.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenter. The definition of
student growth applies to all students, not to any specific subgroups
of students.
Changes: None.
Other Comments
Comment: One commenter recommended adding a definition of
``disaggregated data'' to focus on data that have been cross-tabulated
by gender; race, ethnicity, or both; disability; socio-economic status;
and other student demographic characteristics to enable the data to be
used to identify where interventions need to be made to close gaps in
performance among student subgroups.
Discussion: The term, ``disaggregated data'' is not used in any of
the priority language; therefore, we decline to add a definition in
this notice.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
I. Advancing Key Cradle-to-Career Educational Reforms
Priority 1--Improving Early Learning Outcomes
Projects that are designed to improve school readiness and success
for high-need children (as defined in this notice) from birth through
third grade (or for any age group of high-need children within this
range) through a focus on one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Physical well-being and motor development.
(b) Social-emotional development.
(c) Language and literacy development.
(d) Cognition and general knowledge, including early numeracy and
early scientific development.
(e) Approaches toward learning.
Priority 2--Implementing Internationally Benchmarked, College- and
Career-Ready Elementary and Secondary Academic Standards
Projects that are designed to support the implementation of
internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready academic
standards held in common by multiple States and to improve instruction
and learning, including projects in one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) The development or implementation of assessments (e.g.,
summative, formative, interim) aligned with those standards.
(b) The development or implementation of curriculum or
instructional materials aligned with those standards.
(c) The development or implementation of professional development
or preparation programs aligned with those standards.
(d) Strategies that translate the standards into classroom
practice.
[[Page 78507]]
Priority 3--Improving the Effectiveness and Distribution of Effective
Teachers or Principals
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number or percentage of teachers or principals
who are effective or reducing the number or percentage of teachers or
principals who are ineffective, particularly in high-poverty schools
(as defined in this notice) including through such activities as
improving the preparation, recruitment, development, and evaluation of
teachers and principals; implementing performance-based certification
and retention systems; and reforming compensation and advancement
systems.
(b) Increasing the retention, particularly in high-poverty schools
(as defined in this notice), and equitable distribution of teachers or
principals who are effective.
For the purposes of this priority, teacher and principal
effectiveness should be measured using:
(1) Teacher or principal evaluation data, in States or local
educational agencies that have in place a high-quality teacher or
principal evaluation system that takes into account student growth (as
defined in this notice) in significant part and uses multiple measures,
that, in the case of teachers, may include observations for determining
teacher effectiveness (such as systems that meet the criteria for
evaluation systems under the Race to the Top program as described in
criterion (D)(2)(ii) of the Race to the Top notice inviting
applications (74 FR 59803)); or
(2) Data that include, in significant part, student achievement (as
defined in this notice) or student growth data (as defined in this
notice) and may include multiple measures in States or local
educational agencies that do not have the teacher or principal
evaluation systems described in paragraph (1).
Priority 4--Turning Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Improving student achievement (as defined in this notice) in
persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice).
(b) Increasing graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and
college enrollment rates for students in persistently lowest-achieving
schools (as defined in this notice).
(c) Providing services to students enrolled in persistently lowest-
achieving schools (as defined in this notice).
Priority 5--Improving School Engagement, School Environment, and School
Safety and Improving Family and Community Engagement
Projects that are designed to improve student outcomes through one
or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Improving school engagement, which may include increasing the
quality of relationships between and among administrators, teachers,
families, and students and increasing participation in school-related
activities.
(b) Improving the school environment, which may include improving
the school setting related to student learning, safety, and health.
(c) Improving school safety, which may include decreasing the
incidence of harassment, bullying, violence, and substance use.
(d) Improving parent and family engagement (as defined in this
notice).
(e) Improving community engagement (as defined in this notice) by
supporting partnerships between local educational agencies, school
staff, and one or more of the following:
(i) Faith- or community-based organizations.
(ii) Institutions of higher education.
(iii) Minority-serving institutions or historically black colleges
or universities.
(iv) Business or industry.
(v) Other Federal, State, or local government entities.
Priority 6--Technology
Projects that are designed to improve student achievement or
teacher effectiveness through the use of high-quality digital tools or
materials, which may include preparing teachers to use the technology
to improve instruction, as well as developing, implementing, or
evaluating digital tools or materials.
Priority 7--Core Reforms
Projects conducted in States, local educational agencies, or
schools where core reforms are being implemented. Such a project is one
that is conducted--
(a) In a State that has adopted K-12 State academic standards in
English language arts and mathematics that build towards college- and
career-readiness;
(b) In a State that has implemented a statewide longitudinal data
system that meets all the requirements of the America COMPETES Act; and
(c) In a local educational agency or school in which teachers
receive student growth (as defined in this notice) data on their
current students and the students they taught in the previous year and
these data are provided, at a minimum, to teachers of reading/language
arts and mathematics in grades in which the State administers
assessments in those subjects.
Priority 8--Increasing Postsecondary Success
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as
defined in this notice) who are academically prepared for and enroll in
college or other postsecondary education and training.
(b) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as
defined in this notice) who persist in and complete college or other
postsecondary education and training.
(c) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as
defined in this notice) who enroll in and complete high-quality
programs of study (as defined in this notice) designed to lead to a
postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate.
(d) Increasing the number of individuals who return to the
educational system to obtain a high school diploma; to enroll in
college or other postsecondary education or training; to obtain needed
basic skills leading to success in college or other postsecondary
education or the workforce; or to enter, persist in, and complete
college or rigorous postsecondary career and technical training leading
to a postsecondary degree, credential, or certificate.
(e) Increasing the number and proportion of high-need students (as
defined in this notice) who enroll in and complete graduate programs.
(f) Increasing the number and proportion of postsecondary students
who complete college or other postsecondary education and training and
who are demonstrably prepared for successful employment, active
participation in civic life, and lifelong learning.
II. Addressing Needs of Student Subgroups
Priority 9--Improving Achievement and High School Graduation Rates
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school
graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment
rates for students in rural
[[Page 78508]]
local educational agencies (as defined in this notice).
(b) Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school
graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment
rates for students with disabilities.
(c) Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school
graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment
rates for English learners.
(d) Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school
graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment
rates for high-need students (as defined in this notice).
(e) Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school
graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment
rates in high-poverty schools (as defined in this notice).
(f) Accelerating learning and helping to improve high school
graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment
rates for all students in an inclusive manner that ensures that the
specific needs of high-need students (as defined in this notice)
participating in the project are addressed.
Priority 10--Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Providing students with increased access to rigorous and
engaging coursework in STEM.
(b) Increasing the number and proportion of students prepared for
postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM.
(c) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of,
or professional development for, teachers or other educators of STEM
subjects.
(d) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are provided with access to rigorous and
engaging coursework in STEM or who are prepared for postsecondary or
graduate study and careers in STEM.
(e) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects
and have increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or
professional development.
Priority 11--Promoting Diversity
Projects that are designed to promote student diversity, including
racial and ethnic diversity, or avoid racial isolation.
Priority 12--Support for Military Families
Projects that are designed to address the needs of military-
connected students (as defined in this notice).
III. Building Capacity for Systemic Continuous Improvement
Priority 13--Enabling More Data-Based Decision-Making
Projects that are designed to collect (or obtain), analyze, and use
high-quality and timely data, including data on program participant
outcomes, in accordance with privacy requirements (as defined in this
notice), in one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Improving instructional practices, policies, and child outcomes
in early learning settings.
(b) Improving instructional practices, policies, and student
outcomes in elementary or secondary schools.
(c) Improving postsecondary student outcomes relating to
enrollment, persistence, and completion and leading to career success.
(d) Providing reliable and comprehensive information on the
implementation of Department of Education programs, and participant
outcomes in these programs by using data from State longitudinal data
systems or by obtaining data from reliable third-party sources.
Priority 14--Building Evidence of Effectiveness
Projects that propose evaluation plans that are likely to produce
valid and reliable evidence in one or more of the following priority
areas:
(a) Improving project design and implementation or designing more
effective future projects to improve outcomes.
(b) Identifying and improving practices, strategies, and policies
that may contribute to improving outcomes.
Under this priority, at a minimum, the outcome of interest is to be
measured multiple times before and after the treatment for project
participants and, where feasible, for a comparison group of non-
participants.
Priority 15--Supporting Programs, Practices, or Strategies for which
there is Strong or Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness
Projects that are supported by strong or moderate evidence (as
defined in this notice). A project that is supported by strong evidence
(as defined in this notice) will receive more points than a project
that is supported by moderate evidence (as defined in this notice).
Priority 16--Improving Productivity
Projects that are designed to significantly increase efficiency in
the use of time, staff, money, or other resources while improving
student learning or other educational outcomes (i.e., outcome per unit
of resource). Such projects may include innovative and sustainable uses
of technology, modification of school schedules and teacher
compensation systems, use of open educational resources (as defined in
this notice), or other strategies.
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)).
Definitions:
Carefully matched comparison group design means a type of quasi-
experimental study (as defined in this notice) that attempts to
approximate an experimental study (as defined in this notice). More
specifically, it is a design in which project participants are matched
with non-participants based on key characteristics that are thought to
be related to the outcome. These characteristics include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Prior test scores and other measures of academic achievement
(preferably, the same measures that the study will use to evaluate
outcomes for the two groups);
(2) Demographic characteristics, such as age, disability, gender,
English proficiency, ethnicity, poverty level,
[[Page 78509]]
parents' educational attainment, and single- or two-parent family
background;
(3) The time period in which the two groups are studied (e.g., the
two groups are children entering kindergarten in the same year as
opposed to sequential years); and
(4) Methods used to collect outcome data (e.g., the same test of
reading skills administered in the same way to both groups).
Community engagement means the systematic inclusion of community
organizations as partners with local educational agencies and school
staff. These organizations may include faith- and community-based
organizations, institutions of higher education (including minority-
serving institutions and historically black colleges and universities),
business and industry, or other Federal, State, and local government
entities.
Experimental study means a study that employs random assignment of,
for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to
participate in a project being evaluated (treatment group) or not to
participate in the project (control group). The effect of the project
is the average difference in outcomes between the treatment and control
groups.
Graduation rate means a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also include an extended-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the proposed project is
implemented has been approved by the Secretary to use such a rate under
Title I of the ESEA.
High-need children and high-need students means children and
students at risk of educational failure, such as children and students
who are living in poverty, who are English learners, who are far below
grade level or who are not on track to becoming college- or career-
ready by graduation, who have left school or college before receiving,
respectively, a regular high school diploma or a college degree or
certificate, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time,
who are homeless, who are in foster care, who are pregnant or parenting
teenagers, who have been incarcerated, who are new immigrants, who are
migrant, or who have disabilities.
High-poverty school means a school in which at least 50 percent of
students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or in which at least 50
percent of students are from low-income families as determined using
one of the criteria 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.
Interrupted time series design means a type of quasi-experimental
study (as defined in this notice) in which the outcome of interest is
measured multiple times before and after the treatment for program
participants only. If the program had an impact, the outcomes after
treatment will have a different slope or level from those before
treatment. That is, the series should show an ``interruption'' of the
prior situation at the time when the program was implemented. Adding a
comparison group time series, such as schools not participating in the
program or schools participating in the program in a different
geographic area, substantially increases the reliability of the
findings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A single subject or single case design is an adaptation of
an interrupted time series design that relies on the comparison of
treatment effects on a single subject or group of single subjects.
There is little confidence that findings based on this design would
be the same for other members of the population. In some single
subject designs, treatment reversal or multiple baseline designs are
used to increase internal validity. In a treatment reversal design,
after a pretreatment or baseline outcome measurement is compared
with a post treatment measure, the treatment would then be stopped
for a period of time; a second baseline measure of the outcome would
be taken, followed by a second application of the treatment or a
different treatment. A multiple baseline design addresses concerns
about the effects of normal development, timing of the treatment,
and amount of the treatment with treatment-reversal designs by using
a varying time schedule for introduction of the treatment and/or
treatments of different lengths or intensity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military-connected student means (a) a child participating in an
early learning program, a student in preschool through grade 12, or a
student enrolled in postsecondary education or training who has a
parent or guardian on active duty in the uniformed services (as defined
by 37 U.S.C. 101, in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast
Guard, National Guard, or the reserve component of any of the
aforementioned services) or (b) a student who is a veteran of the
uniformed services, who is on active duty, or who is the spouse of an
active-duty service member.
Moderate evidence means evidence from previous studies whose
designs can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high
internal validity) but have limited generalizability (i.e., moderate
external validity), or studies with high external validity but moderate
internal validity. The following would constitute moderate evidence:
(1) At least one well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in
this notice) experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in
this notice) supporting the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or
program, with small sample sizes or other conditions of implementation
or analysis that limit generalizability;
(2) At least one well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in
this notice) experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in
this notice) that does not demonstrate equivalence between the
intervention and comparison groups at program entry but that has no
other major flaws related to internal validity; or
(3) Correlational research with strong statistical controls for
selection bias and for discerning the influence of internal factors.
Open educational resources (OER) means teaching, learning, and
research resources that reside in the public domain or have been
released under an intellectual property license that permits their free
use or repurposing by others.
Parent and family engagement means the systematic inclusion of
parents and families, working in partnership with local educational
agencies and school staff, in their child's education, which may
include strengthening the ability of (a) parents and families to
support their child's education and (b) school staff to work with
parents and families.
Persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as determined by the
State: (i) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that (a) is among the lowest-achieving five percent of
Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or
the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is
greater; or (b) is a high school that has had a graduation rate as
defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number
of years; and (ii) any secondary school that is eligible for, but does
not receive, Title I funds that: (a) Is among the lowest-achieving five
percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary
schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I
funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or (b) is a high school
that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is
less than 60 percent over a number of years.
To identify the persistently lowest-achieving schools, a State must
take into
[[Page 78510]]
account both: (i) The academic achievement of the ``all students''
group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments
under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and
mathematics combined; and (ii) the school's lack of progress on those
assessments over a number of years in the ``all students'' group.
Privacy requirements means the requirements of the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g, and its
implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 99, the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.
552a, as well as all applicable Federal, State and local requirements
regarding privacy.
Programs of study means career and technical education programs of
study, which may be offered as an option to students (and their parents
as appropriate) when planning for and completing future coursework, for
career and technical content areas, that--
(a) Incorporate secondary education and postsecondary education
elements;
(b) Include coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging
academic standards and relevant career and technical content in a
coordinated, non-duplicative progression of courses that align
secondary education with postsecondary education to adequately prepare
students to succeed in postsecondary education;
(c) May include the opportunity for secondary education students to
participate in dual or concurrent enrollment programs or other ways to
acquire postsecondary education credits; and
(d) Lead to an industry-recognized credential or certificate at the
postsecondary level, or an associate or baccalaureate degree.
Quasi-experimental study means an evaluation design that attempts
to approximate an experimental design (as defined in this notice) and
can support causal conclusions (i.e., minimizes threats to internal
validity, such as selection bias, or allows them to be modeled). Well-
designed and well-implemented (as defined in this notice) quasi-
experimental studies (as defined in this notice) include carefully
matched comparison group designs (as defined in this notice),
interrupted time series designs (as defined in this notice), or
regression discontinuity designs (as defined in this notice).
Regression discontinuity design study means, in part, a quasi-
experimental study (as defined in this notice) design that closely
approximates an experimental study (as defined in this notice). In a
regression discontinuity design, participants are assigned to a
treatment or comparison group based on a numerical rating or score of a
variable unrelated to the treatment such as the rating of an
application for funding. Another example would be assignment of
eligible students, teachers, classrooms, or schools above a certain
score (``cut score'') to the treatment group and assignment of those
below the score to the comparison group.
Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency
(LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA)
program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized
under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine
whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to
information on the Department's Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.
Strong evidence means evidence from previous studies whose designs
can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal
validity), and studies that in total include enough of the range of
participants and settings to support scaling up to the State, regional,
or national level (i.e., studies with high external validity). The
following are examples of strong evidence:
(1) More than one well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in
this notice) experimental study (as defined in this notice) or well-
designed and well-implemented (as defined in this notice) quasi-
experimental study (as defined in this notice) that supports the
effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program; or
(2) One large, well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in
this notice) randomized controlled, multisite trial that supports the
effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program.
Student achievement means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the
State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other
measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b)
of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across
schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across schools.
Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined
in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in
time. A State may also include other measures that are rigorous and
comparable across classrooms.
Well-designed and well-implemented means, with respect to an
experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice),
that the study meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards,
with or without reservations (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1 and in particular the
description of ``Reasons for Not Meeting Standards'' at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/Doc.aspx?docId=19&tocId=4#reasons).
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria for a
particular program, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities and
definitions, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Executive Order 12866: Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary
must determine whether a 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. Section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as
an action likely to result in a rule that may (1) Have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities
in a material way (also referred to as an ``economically significant''
rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or local 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 set forth in the Executive order. The
Secretary has determined that this regulatory action is significant
under section 3(f)(4) of the Executive order.
This notice has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential
costs and benefits of this final regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this final regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements
[[Page 78511]]
and those we have determined as necessary for administering the
Department's discretionary grant programs effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this final regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the final priorities and definitions justify the
costs.
We have determined, also, that this final regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Intergovernmental Review: Some of the programs affected by these
final priorities 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.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister. To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
this site.
Note: 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 on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
Dated: December 8, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2010-31189 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P