[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86545-86551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28820]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID ED-2020-OPEPD-0096]


Administrative Priority and Definitions for Discretionary Grant 
Programs

AGENCY: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priority and definitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education announces a priority and 
definitions for discretionary grant programs that the Secretary may use 
in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years to promote the use of the 
Department of Education's (the Department's) discretionary grants funds 
to support remote learning.

DATES: The priority and definitions are effective January 29, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 205-5231. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85eee0e9e9fcabf1e0f7f5e4eec5e0e1abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f49f9198988dda80918684959fb49190da939b82">[email protected]</span></a>.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
    We published a notice of proposed priority and definitions (NPP) in 
the Federal Register on September 8, 2020 (85 FR 55439). That notice 
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the 
particular administrative priority and definitions.
    We have made minor revisions to paragraphs (b) and (f) of the 
priority and to the definition of ``interoperable credentials,'' which 
we explain in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this 
document.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 16 
parties submitted comments.
    We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not 
address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not 
address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to 
the proposed priority and definitions.
    Analysis of the Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments 
and of any changes in the priority and definitions since publication of 
the NPP follows.
    Comments: A few commenters asked for clarity on how the priority 
would be used and encouraged the Department to prioritize certain 
applicants, such as institutions of higher education, for eligibility.
    Discussion: As discussed in the NPP, the priority is intended to 
build State and local capacity to support remote learning and 
instruction. The Department may elect to use this priority when 
inviting applications for a discretionary grant program. The Department 
has the discretion to choose whether the priority and definitions are 
appropriate for the competition after considering program purpose, 
feasibility, and scope. The Department also has the discretion to 
choose how the priority would apply; for example, the priority may be 
used as an absolute priority (applicants must address the priority in 
order to be eligible to receive grant funds) or a competitive 
preference priority (applicants may receive additional points depending 
on how well they address the priority). We will only use the priority 
and definitions for a particular grant competition when it is relevant 
and appropriate. Furthermore, the Department is not required to use the 
priority and definitions for any particular program.
    In any competition in which this priority and definitions are used, 
eligible entities are determined by the program statute; therefore, we 
cannot specify eligibility for a particular type of entity as part of 
the final priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A few commenters proposed revisions to, or additional 
language for, the background section that accompanied the proposed 
priority to emphasize the impact of school closures for in-person 
instruction on different populations, such as students with 
disabilities, as well as specifics related to learning losses discussed 
in the cited study.
    Discussion: We appreciate the feedback we received on the NPP 
background section, which explains our rationale for this priority and 
definitions. We agree with comments that emphasized the impact of 
school closures for in-person instruction on students with disabilities 
and other groups of students and believe the commenters' concerns are 
sufficiently addressed through paragraph (f) of the priority. Moreover, 
we are revising paragraph (f) so that a program may choose to focus on 
a specific subgroup. Additionally, we added language in parentheticals 
clarifying that where the commonly used terms used for the subgroups of 
students in paragraph (f) or similar terms are defined in the 
applicable authorizing program statute, these terms take on the 
statutory definition that applies to the particular program. For 
example, this priority could be used in the Alaska Native Education 
(ANE) program to encourage projects that provide high-quality remote 
learning to students who are Alaska Natives, as defined in the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA), through the 
use of paragraph (f)(iv) of the priority, pertaining to Native American 
students.
    Changes: We are modifying paragraph (f) so that a program may 
choose to focus on specific subgroups and have clarified that the 
definitions of listed subgroups may be based on the program's statutory 
authority, as applicable.
    Comments: Multiple commenters requested that we reference Section 
508 of the Rehabilitation Act in the accessibility requirement 
paragraph that concludes the priority.
    Discussion: We agree that accessibility is important in ensuring 
all students can access remote learning effectively, and we have 
indicated so in various paragraphs of the priority. Section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act applies only to Federal agencies, so recipients of 
Federal financial assistance are not required to comply with that law; 
consequently, inclusion of Section 508 in the accessibility requirement 
has limited applicability and is therefore unnecessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns about the impact 
of remote learning for students with disabilities, including a concern 
that the priority did not take into account the individual needs of 
students identified for services pursuant to the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
    In addition, multiple commenters expressed support for paragraph 
(f) of the priority to target the needs of specific subgroups, 
including students with disabilities. However, one commenter 
recommended the Department remove the requirement that paragraph (f) of 
the priority be used only in conjunction with another paragraph of the 
priority.

[[Page 86546]]

    Discussion: Students with disabilities throughout the country who 
may be eligible for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973 (Section 504) or the IDEA must have their individual 
learning needs met from wherever they are learning. Educators also need 
training and support to provide effective remote instruction. Through 
this priority, we will promote strategies and practices for delivering 
remote learning and competency-based education that effectively meet 
the individual needs of students with disabilities, including: 
Identifying the appropriate technologies, assistive technologies, or 
accessible educational materials needed to ensure students with 
disabilities have access to core or alternate curricula; enhancing 
communication and collaboration with parents and families to identify 
the most effective methodology and supports that will meet the unique 
and individual needs of students with disabilities; and ensuring 
Individualized Education Program teams and teams determining services 
under Section 504 collaborate with parents to identify the program, 
related services, accommodations, and supports the individual student 
will require in order to derive an educational benefit and achieve 
academic, functional, and behavioral educational outcomes.
    Lastly, paragraph (f) of the priority is designed to target the 
work carried out under paragraphs (a)-(e) of the priority to a 
particular subgroup or subgroups of students and leverage that work to 
focus efforts. As such, paragraph (f) on its own would not address 
fully the improvements that would be supported with this remote 
learning priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters suggested adding language on the 
principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in all the paragraphs 
of the priority.
    Discussion: The priority currently refers to UDL in paragraph (a) 
of the priority as an example. As written, the language in the other 
paragraphs of the priority could be inclusive of UDL as a strategy for 
meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
    Further, the priority offers the flexibility for applicants to 
address UDL and similar strategies in their grant applications. There 
is nothing in the priority that would prohibit the use of UDL. For 
these reasons, it is not necessary to revise the priority to include 
explicit references to the strategy in all paragraphs of the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter raised concerns that the priority did not 
address all student populations most impacted by remote learning, that 
remote learning is not culturally responsive, and that the assessments 
need to be research-based. This commenter also raised concern about 
inequitable access to technology, stating that the priority will 
further exacerbate the ``digital divide.'' A second commenter 
recommended removing the 10 percent limitation on technology costs, 
citing concerns about access to technology and the variance in that 
access across the country.
    Discussion: We appreciate the concern that the remote learning 
priority must consider the needs of all students. We include paragraph 
(f) of the priority which requires ``high-quality'' remote learning for 
specific subgroups of students, and we think that the concept of high-
quality remote learning would include considerations about what is 
culturally responsive, as appropriate. We also generally defer to 
applicants on how best to meet their communities' needs. Furthermore, 
the intent of the remote learning priority is to ensure that the 
Department provide incentives to applicants that would implement 
robust, effective, and engaging remote learning strategies that meet 
the needs of all students. In addition, while we do not explicitly 
require performance-based assessments to be supported by research, in 
paragraph (d) of the priority we do require that the assessments obtain 
valid and reliable results.
    Paragraph (c) of the proposed priority allowed for providing access 
to technologies needed to serve learners. The intent of proposed 
paragraph (c) was to reduce the differences in access to technology. We 
understand that setting a limit on technology costs could be 
prohibitive to successfully implementing the remote learning priority 
and understand that applicants are best positioned to determine the 
sufficient amount of resources needed to invest in technology to 
support project objectives. As such, we are removing the cap on 
technology costs in paragraph (c) of the proposed priority.
    Changes: We are removing the last sentence of paragraph (c) of the 
proposed priority.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported the priority, emphasized 
the need for professional learning and the usage of paragraph (b), and 
noted the important role institutions of higher education play in 
professional development. One commenter asked that the Department use 
paragraph (b) in all competitions as an absolute priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the priority. We agree 
that professional learning is an important part of effective remote 
learning and agree that institutions of higher education, along with a 
number of other entities, can support professional learning for 
educators. With respect to using paragraph (b) as an absolute priority 
across all discretionary grant programs, the Department has discretion 
in choosing whether and how to use the priority based on its 
applicability to a given program's purpose, and those decisions are 
best made on a program-by-program basis.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A couple of commenters requested that the Department 
expand paragraph (b), which is focused on professional learning. One 
commenter wanted paragraph (b) to align with the definition of 
``professional development'' under the ESEA. Another commenter said the 
examples in the parenthetical for paragraph (b) should be expanded with 
additional examples to emphasize professional development focused on 
student engagement and not just professional development in technology 
use.
    Discussion: We appreciate the interest in clarity and consistency 
in terminology in this priority and other statutes. However, the 
language about professional development being ``sustained and 
intensive'' from the definition of ``professional development'' in ESEA 
is not appropriate for this remote learning priority. Our intent for 
this priority is to help the Department's grantees pivot between in-
person and remote learning as needed. While remote learning in response 
to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been in place for 
an extended period, not all remote learning under this priority will be 
for similar time frames, and professional learning may not need to be 
ongoing to address educator capacity for remote learning.
    In regard to the comment recommending additional examples to 
highlight professional learning activities beyond technology, paragraph 
(b) already includes a focus on professional learning with the intent 
of advancing student engagement and learning, but we recognize the 
paragraph may appear to highlight technology primarily. As such, we are 
reorganizing the sentence for paragraph (b) to clearly emphasize 
increasing student engagement, including through the use of technology.
    Changes: We are revising paragraph (b) so that it more clearly 
states that the professional learning under this priority is focused on 
student engagement and learning through technology, rather than 
emphasizing technology.

[[Page 86547]]

    Comments: Multiple commenters sought revisions to paragraph (d) of 
the priority to clarify that performance-based assessments are 
important, regardless of the connection to competency-based education; 
that the assessments must show true competency; and that assessments 
should not require seat time. Commenters also asked the Department to 
provide additional examples of assessments.
    Discussion: We agree that performance-based assessments are 
important and purposefully highlight these kinds of assessments and 
seek their development under paragraph (d) of the priority. We agree 
that performance-based assessments can be separate from competency-
based education; however, we want to emphasize competency-based 
education in this paragraph of the remote learning priority. Moreover, 
we want to encourage assessments that demonstrate competency, in 
keeping with the recommendation from one commenter, and we want to 
support assessments that accurately document students' skills. The 
examples included in paragraph (d) do not need to be exhaustive and are 
sufficient for the purposes of the priority. Lastly, we do not consider 
the priority or the definition of ``competency-based education,'' as 
written, to require a particular amount of instruction or seat time; 
rather, the definition of ``competency-based education'' specifically 
calls for assessments that demonstrate progression ``based on 
demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge) 
and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.''
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the ``valid and reliable 
assessments'' piece of paragraph (d) of the priority that focused on 
assessments and competency-based education should not be limited to 
just summative assessments.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's interest in not limiting 
assessments to summative assessments and focusing on formative 
assessments as well. We do not consider the inclusion of ``valid and 
reliable'' in describing the assessments to mean that they must only be 
summative assessments. Rather, paragraph (d) focuses on performance-
based assessments that document students' skills and, under the 
definition of ``competency-based education,'' progression is based on 
demonstrated mastery rather than seat time. However, we want to clarify 
that the intent is for performance-based assessments to yield valid and 
reliable results and are therefore changing ``obtain'' in proposed 
paragraph (d) to ``yield.''
    Changes: We are revising ``obtain'' in paragraph (d) of the 
proposed priority to ``yield.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we clarify the terms 
``hybrid/blended learning'' and ``linked open data formats'' used in 
the priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the interest in providing clarity in the 
priority and the terminology used. We decline to further define 
``hybrid/blended learning,'' as this term has various meanings in the 
field depending on specific contexts of a particular community, and we 
do not think it is necessary to define the term for purposes of the 
priority. We also decline to define ``linked open data formats.'' We 
think ``open data'' is a term widely used at the Federal, State, and 
local levels, and by ``linked'' we emphasize the accessibility of the 
data. We do not consider a separate definition to be necessary and 
believe programs using this priority will clarify how these terms fit 
within their specific context.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether, under paragraph (f), the 
Department should require applicants to provide both high-quality 
remote learning and competency-based education in response to this 
paragraph, or whether applicants should have the flexibility to choose 
between remote learning or competency-based education, as provided in 
the proposed priority.
    Discussion: The proposed priority would have offered applicants a 
choice between providing remote learning or competency-based education 
to specific student subgroups. While a project could support both 
remote learning and competency-based education, in further reviewing 
paragraph (f), we think ``competency-based education'' can be removed 
from proposed paragraph (f) because the broader priority is focused on 
building capacity for remote learning.
    Changes: We are removing ``or competency-based education'' from 
paragraph (f) of the proposed priority.
    Comment: One commenter proposed limiting the definition of ``remote 
learning'' to K-12 education given the recent publication of the higher 
education distance education regulations, citing concern that existing 
definitions in the higher education context, including the definition 
for ``distance education,'' that include remote learning concepts may 
spark confusion. Specifically, ``distance education'' is defined in the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), as well as in the 
Distance Education and Innovation regulations published in the Federal 
Register on September 2, 2020 (85 FR 54742).
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's consideration of whether 
this priority and the ``remote learning'' definition is applicable in 
the higher education context, as our intent is to establish a priority 
that could be used in grant programs across the Department, including 
those for higher education. We recognize that there are definitions for 
``distance education'' in section 103(7) of the HEA and ``distance 
learning'' in section 8101(14) of the ESEA. The definition of ``remote 
learning'' is not meant to contradict or supersede these definitions or 
the definition of ``distance education'' in the HEA or the higher 
education Distance Education and Innovation regulations; rather, it is 
meant to provide context for those definitions and clarify what is 
meant by remote learning in the context of this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported the priority but asked that the 
definition for ``remote learning'' also reference non-technology 
models, such as service learning, internships, and other programs.
    Discussion: We agree that remote learning can include non-
technology models and highlight some of those as examples in the 
``remote learning'' definition. Given that the list of examples is not 
exhaustive, nothing in the definition prohibits other activities in 
addition to the activities identified. We, therefore, do not think 
adding additional examples is necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported the inclusion of 
competency-based education in the priority, with one commenter 
recommending a stand-alone priority focused on competency-based 
education, arguing that competency-based education, while it can be 
used in conjunction with technology, does not require technology.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for inclusion of competency-
based education in the priority and definitions. We agree that 
competency-based education is important, and the Department previously 
included ``competency-based learning'' in Priority 3--Fostering 
Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining Knowledge and Skills in the 
Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for 
Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities) published in the 
Federal Register on March 2, 2018

[[Page 86548]]

(83 FR 9096). As such, we do not need to create an additional, separate 
priority for competency-based education. Further, we decline to remove 
the reference to ``competency-based education'' in paragraph (a) 
because our intent is to encourage competency-based education in remote 
learning environments.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters recommended changes to the definition 
of ``competency-based education,'' including adding references to 
credentials that are inclusive of all students, include appropriate 
pacing, and are student focused. An additional commenter proposed 
limiting the definition for ``competency-based education'' to K-12 
education given the recent publication of the higher education Distance 
Education and Innovation regulations and concern about confusion when 
used in the higher education context, especially since competency-based 
education was not defined in those regulations.
    Discussion: We appreciate comments suggesting that we revise the 
definition of ``competency-based education.'' We proposed to define the 
term as ``competency-based education,'' which was included as an 
example in paragraph (a) of the priority and is central to the 
performance-based assessments piece of paragraph (d). The definition as 
written is inclusive of all students, allows for demonstration of 
mastery as a result of self-paced learning, and provides a broad 
understanding of competency-based education for operationalizing within 
the context of the remote learning priority. The definition of 
``competency-based education'' for the remote learning priority is 
consistent with other Department usage and definitions of ``competency-
based education,'' including the Rural Tech Project (https://www.ruraltechproject.com/).
    As to the concern about usage of the priority and the ``competency-
based education'' definition in higher education, the Department has 
the discretion for each grant program to choose if the priority should 
be used in a given competition considering the program's purpose, 
feasibility, and scope, and, if so, how the priority would apply; for 
example, a program may choose to use only paragraph (a) of the 
priority. As noted above, competency-based education is part of an 
illustrative list in paragraph (a), and an applicant is not required to 
address all items in that list. Competency-based education is more 
central to paragraph (d), but the Department may choose whether to use 
paragraph (d) when including the remote learning priority in a 
particular grant competition, taking into consideration the program's 
statute and other relevant regulations. As noted earlier, the 
Department will make program-by-program decisions about when and how to 
use the remote learning priority, including in the higher education 
context. Moreover, the definition of ``competency-based education'' 
does not contradict or supersede any of the Distance Education and 
Innovation regulations; rather, it is meant to clarify what is meant by 
``competency-based education'' in the context of this priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter supported the inclusion of interoperable 
credentials in the priority and definitions and recommended that the 
Department include interoperable credential requirements in all 
discretionary grant competitions. In the definition, the commenter 
proposed that we change ``common standardized frameworks'' to 
``nationally recognized and widely used educational or professional 
learning standards.''
    Discussion: We agree that interoperable credentials are important 
and appreciate the support for paragraph (e) of the priority. The 
Department has discretion in choosing whether and how to use the 
priority for all of our grant competitions. We decide to use a 
particular priority based on careful consideration of whether the 
priority and definitions are appropriate for each competition with 
regard to program purpose, feasibility, and scope.
    In regard to the recommendation to refer to ``nationally recognized 
and widely used educational or professional learning standards'' rather 
than ``common standardized frameworks,'' we appreciate the interest in 
ensuring clarity in terminology. We note the white papers hosted on the 
U.S. Department of Commerce website designed to provide clarity 
regarding, among other things, ``credentials,'' which include a focus 
on ``common standardized frameworks'': ``White Paper on Interoperable 
Learning Records'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_EBOOK.pdf) and ``Learning and Employment Records: 
Progress and the path forward'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf). Moreover, we do not think the 
Department should endorse specific national standards related to 
credentialing, and, as such, we do not consider it appropriate to 
revise the definition as the commenter suggested. Though there are many 
standards that could apply to credentials, we expect applicants and 
grantees will choose standards that are widely accepted and meet the 
needs of their projects. Therefore, we are not making any changes to 
the reference to, or definition of, ``interoperable credentials.''
    Changes: None.
    Comment: In reference to competency-based education and 
interoperable credentials, one commenter recommended adding specific 
references to ``short-term credentials,'' such as micro-credentials, to 
clearly demonstrate that credentials are broader than traditional, 
time-bound programs.
    Discussion: We agree that the intent behind inclusion of 
competency-based education and interoperable credentials in the 
priority and definitions is to broaden practitioners' use of 
credentials. As such, we are adding examples of some of these short-
term credentials to highlight other less traditional credential types.
    Change: In the definition for ``interoperable credentials,'' we 
have added references to micro-, stackable, and other types of short-
term credentials.
    Comment: One commenter proposed limiting the definition of 
``interoperable credentials'' to K-12 education, stating that the term 
is not one used in the higher education context.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's consideration of whether 
the ``interoperable credentials'' definition is applicable in the 
higher education context, as our intent is to have a priority that 
could be used in grant programs across the Department, including those 
for postsecondary education. Credentials are more than specific 
postsecondary degrees; they can be smaller units and time bound. 
Examples of these types of credentials include micro-credentials and 
stackable credentials, which can be used for professional development, 
and we think it is important for all education sectors to think more 
broadly about credentials and their interoperability.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters asked whether the definition of 
``interoperable credentials'' creates two sets of requirements, for the 
credentials themselves and for data and information sharing relating to 
the credentials. The commenters suggested clarifying revisions. Given 
that the term included two distinct points, the commenters had concerns 
about confusion when defining ``interoperable credentials.'' The 
commenters proposed edits to clarify the distinction.

[[Page 86549]]

    In addition, one of the commenters also expressed the importance of 
transparency related to interoperable credentials and proposed a new 
definition for ``credential transparency.''
    Discussion: Through this definition, the Department is establishing 
requirements both with respect to the credentials generally and with 
respect to their interoperability. Although there are many types of 
credentials, including some that may not be interoperable, we 
intentionally use the term ``interoperable credentials'' in this 
priority because we are especially interested in promoting 
recognizable, transferrable, and transparent evidence of mastery. 
Defining the term ``interoperable credentials'' does not imply that 
other forms of credentials do not exist.
    Credential transparency is embedded in the definition, particularly 
through the requirement of ``open standards,'' and, as the commenter 
points out, there are many organizations focused on making credentials 
transparent and available to users. We note the white papers hosted on 
the U.S. Department of Commerce website as examples of the efforts to 
promote credential transparency and interoperability, in this case in 
the context of learner employment records: ``White Paper on 
Interoperable Learning Records'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/ILR_White_Paper_FINAL_EBOOK.pdf) and ``Learning and Employment 
Records: Progress and the path forward'' (www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/LERwhitepaper09222020.pdf). We, thus, do not 
think a separate definition or additional clarification of the 
definition is needed.
    Changes: None.

Final Priority

Building Capacity for Remote Learning

    Under this priority, an applicant must propose a project that is 
designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
    (a) Adopting and supporting models that leverage technology (e.g., 
universal design for learning, competency-based education (as defined 
in this notice), or hybrid/blended learning) and provide high-quality 
digital learning content, applications, and tools.
    (b) Providing personalized and job-embedded professional learning 
to build the capacity of educators to create remote learning 
experiences that advance student engagement and learning through 
effective use of technology (e.g., synchronous and asynchronous 
professional learning, professional learning networks or communities, 
and coaching).
    (c) Providing access to any of the following, in particular to 
serve learners without access to such technologies: Reliable, high-
speed internet, learning devices, or software applications that meet 
all students' and educators' remote learning needs while inside the 
school building and in remote learning environments.
    (d) Developing performance-based assessments that promote 
competency-based education and can be delivered remotely or in-person 
to students and yield valid and reliable results that accurately 
document students' skills (e.g., inquiry/game-based assessment or data 
visualization tools for monitoring ongoing learning).
    (e) Supporting the development of digital interoperable credentials 
(as defined in this notice) that make transparent the competencies 
achieved through remote learning experiences and allow students to 
access, control, and share their achievements across a variety of 
education and training processes (formal or informal, classroom-based, 
remote, or workplace-based). Information on these credentials must be 
publicly accessible using linked open data formats to ensure their 
transferability and the continuity of learning for students.
    (f) Providing high-quality remote learning specifically for one or 
more of the following student subgroups:
    (i) Students from low-income (as may be defined in the program's 
authorizing statute) families;
    (ii) Children or students with disabilities (as may be defined in 
the program's authorizing statute);
    (iii) English learners (as may be defined in the program's 
authorizing statute);
    (iv) Native American (as may be defined in the program's 
authorizing statute) students;
    (v) Homeless (as may be defined in the program's authorizing 
statute) students ; or
    (vi) Students attending schools in rural (as may be defined in the 
program's authorizing statute) areas.
    The remote learning environment must be accessible to individuals 
with disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as 
applicable. The remote learning environment must also provide 
appropriate remote learning language assistance services to English 
learners.

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)).
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note:  This document does not solicit applications. In any year 
in which we choose to use the priority and definitions, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Final Definitions

    The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any 
Department discretionary grant competition in which the final priority 
is used:
    Competency-based education (also called proficiency-based or 
mastery-based learning) means learning based on knowledge and skills 
that are transparent and measurable. Progression is based on 
demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge) 
and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.
    Interoperable credentials are those credentials built using open 
standards so that they are shareable, verifiable, portable, and secure. 
The credentials describe the specific achievements, such as credential 
type, skill level, or other information, using common, standardized 
frameworks so that the data are machine readable, exchangeable, and 
actionable across technology systems and, when appropriate, on the web. 
When

[[Page 86550]]

credentials are interoperable, a full range of an individual's skills 
and achievements, earned through formal and informal learning 
experiences or workplace-based training, can be collected together and 
verified, regardless of available technology systems, reducing 
challenges as individuals transition between education and employment. 
These credentials include traditional academic credentials, as well as 
micro-, stackable, and other types of short-term credentials earned 
through short-term, professional development, or non-credit bearing 
educational experiences.
    Remote learning means programming where at least part of the 
learning occurs away from the physical building in a manner that 
addresses a learner's education needs. Remote learning may include 
online, hybrid/blended learning, or non-technology-based learning 
(e.g., lab kits, project supplies, paper packets).

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

 Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the 
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates 
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, 
and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For FY 2021, any new incremental costs associated 
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of 
existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 
13771 does not apply to ``transfer rules'' that cause only income 
transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those 
regarding discretionary grant programs. Because the priority and 
definitions would be used in connection with one or more discretionary 
grant programs, Executive Order 13771 does not apply.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and 
costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing this final priority and definitions only on a 
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's 
programs and activities.

Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that this regulatory action will not impose 
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in our 
programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with grant 
funds. As a result, the priority and definitions will not impose any 
particular burden except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for 
a grant. The benefits of the priority and definitions will outweigh any 
associated costs because they will help ensure that the Department's 
discretionary grant programs select high-quality applicants to 
implement activities that are designed to address critical remote 
learning needs.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that this regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business 
Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small 
businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not 
dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue 
below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities 
if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their 
field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small 
organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a 
population below 50,000.
    Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible 
entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the 
number of applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive 
grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the final 
priority and definitions will

[[Page 86551]]

significantly impact small entities beyond the potential for increasing 
the likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, competitive grants 
from the Department.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    These final priority and definitions contain information collection 
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0009; the final priority and definitions do not affect the currently 
approved data collection.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for the Department's discretionary grant programs.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Betsy DeVos,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28820 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>