78486 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

1Reminder 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. 

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: Margo.Anderson@ed.gov. 

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

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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-andcomment 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78488 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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-throughthird 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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, socialemotional 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 wellbeing 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 highneed 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 highneed 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78490 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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, Collegeand 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 careerready 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 careerready 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78492 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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 highpoverty 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 highquality 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 highpoverty 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 lowestachieving schools. Many commenters 

recommended that the priority mention 

expanded learning time, including afterschool 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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 lowestachieving 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 lowestachieving 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 lowperforming 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 lowestachieving 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 LowestAchieving 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 lowestachieving 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 careerready 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 highneed 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78494 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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 faithand 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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 highquality 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 collegeand 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 careerreadiness; 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 careerreadiness; 

(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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78496 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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 collegelevel 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 highquality 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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 highquality 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 highneed students, and students in highpoverty schools—rather than on the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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 highneed 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 highneed 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 highpoverty 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 highquality 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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 highearning 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 lowerpaying 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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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 highquality 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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 ‘‘militaryconnected 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 highquality, 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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 prekindergarten 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 DataBased Decision-Making. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 78503 

Projects that are designed to collect 

(or obtain), analyze, and use highquality 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 quasiexperimental 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 quasiexperimental 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 quasiexperimental 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 DecisionMaking) 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 quasiexperimental 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78504 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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 extendedyear 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 lowsocioeconomic 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 highpoverty 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78506 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

flexibility to define persistently lowestachieving schools. 

Discussion: As stated earlier, our 

intention with Priority 4 is to support 

projects that will serve the lowestachieving 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 welldesigned 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 highneed 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, Collegeand 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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 highpoverty 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 highquality 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 lowestachieving 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 highquality 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 careerreadiness; 

(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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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 highquality 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 quasiexperimental 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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 78509 

2A 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. 

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 faithand 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 careerready 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

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 quasiexperimental 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 quasiexperimental 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 lowestachieving schools, a State must take into 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
78510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

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 wellimplemented (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 wellimplemented (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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2