Vol. 80 Monday, 

No. 90 May 11, 2015 

Part III 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Chapter IV 

Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criterion—First in 

the World Program; Applications for New Awards; Final Rule and Notices 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
27036 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1Carnevale, A., Smith, N., Strohl, J., Help 

Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education 

Requirements Through 2018. Georgetown Center on 

Education and the Workforce, 2010. 

2U.S. Census Bureau. ‘‘Educational Attainment of 

the Population 18 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, 

Race, and Hispanic Origin: 2014’’ Retrieved from: 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/

data/cps/2014/tables.html. 

3National Center for Education Statistics. 

‘‘Percentage of recent high school completers 

enrolled in 2-year and 4-year colleges, by income 

level: 1975 through 2012.’’ Retrieved from: http:// 

nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_

302.30.asp. 

4National Center for Education Statistics. 

‘‘Percentage distribution of first-time postsecondary 

students starting at 2- and 4-year institutions during 

the 2003–04 academic year, by highest degree 

attained, enrollment status, and selected 

characteristics: Spring 2009.’’ Retrieved from: 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/

dt13_326.40.asp. 

5 Id. 

6U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community 

Survey. 

7Organization of Economic Co-operation and 

Development, Education at a Glance 2004 (Table 

A3.4b, showing data for 1991). 

8Organization of Economic Co-operation and 

Development, Education at a Glance 1993, Table S5. 

9Organization of Economic Co-operation and 

Development, Education at a Glance 2014. 

10U.S. Department of Education. 2010. Profile of 

Undergraduate Students: 2007–08. National Center 

for Education Statistics: 2010–205. Washington DC. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket No. ED–2015–OPE–0001; CFDA 

Numbers: 84.116F and 84.116X] 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criterion— 

First in the World Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

selection criterion, and definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Postsecondary Education announces 

priorities, requirements, a selection 

criterion, and definitions under the First 

in the World (FITW) program. The 

Assistant Secretary may use these 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criterion, and definitions for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 

and later years. 

These priorities, requirements, 

selection criterion, and definitions will 

enable the Department to focus the 

FITW program on identified barriers to 

student success in postsecondary 

education and advance the program’s 

purpose to build evidence for what 

works in postsecondary education 

through development, evaluation, and 

dissemination of innovative strategies to 

support students who are at risk of 

failure in persisting in and completing 

their postsecondary programs of study. 

DATES: These priorities, requirements, 

selection criterion, and definitions are 

effective June 10, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank Frankfort, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

6166, Washington, DC 20006. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7513 or by email: 

frank.frankfort@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: Earning a 

postsecondary degree or credential is a 

prerequisite for the growing jobs of the 

new economy and the clearest pathway 

to the middle class. The average 

earnings of college graduates are almost 

twice as high as those of workers with 

only a high school diploma and, over 

this decade, employment in jobs 

requiring education beyond a high 

school diploma will grow more rapidly 

than employment in jobs that do not.1

Today, even though college 

enrollment has increased by 50 percent 

since 1990, and despite the importance 

of a postsecondary education to 

financial security for American families, 

only 40 percent of Americans hold a 

postsecondary degree.2 While the vast 

majority of high school graduates from 

the wealthiest American families 

continue on to higher education, only 

half of high school graduates from the 

poorest families attend college.3 About 

60 percent of students at four-year 

institutions earn a bachelor’s degree 

within six years.4 For low-income 

students, the prospects are even worse, 

as only 40 percent reach completion.5

Almost 37 million Americans report 

‘‘some college, no degree’’ as their 

highest level of education.6 Due to these 

outcomes, the United States has been 

outpaced internationally in higher 

education. In 1990, the United States 

ranked third in the world in degree 

attainment among 25–34 year olds 7

(and ranked first in terms of university 

education 8); in 2012, the United States 

ranked 12th.9

Recognizing these factors, President 

Obama set a goal for the country that 

America will once again have the 

highest proportion of college graduates 

in the world. To support this national 

effort, the Administration has outlined a 

comprehensive agenda that includes 

expanding opportunity and increasing 

quality at all levels of education, from 

early learning through higher education. 

The FITW program is a key part of this 

agenda. 

Unlike in previous generations, adult 

learners, working students, part-time 

students, students from low-income 

backgrounds, students of color, and 

first-generation students now make up 

the majority of students in college.10

Ensuring that these students persist in 

and complete their postsecondary 

education is essential to meeting our 

Nation’s educational challenges. 

However, the traditional methods and 

practices of the country’s higher 

education system have typically not 

been focused on ensuring successful 

outcomes for these students, and too 

little is known about what strategies are 

most effective for addressing key 

barriers that prevent these students from 

persisting and completing. 

A key element of the FITW program 

is its multi-tier structure that links the 

amount of funding that an applicant 

may receive to the quality of evidence 

supporting the efficacy of the proposed 

project and the scope of its potential 

impact. In this program, applicants 

proposing practices supported by 

limited evidence can receive smaller 

grants (Development grants) that 

support the development and initial 

evaluation of innovative but untested 

strategies. Applicants proposing 

practices supported by evidence from 

rigorous evaluations can receive larger 

grants (Validation and Scale-up grants), 

in amounts commensurate to the level 

of supporting evidence and intended 

scope, for implementation at greater 

scale to test whether initially successful 

strategies remain effective when 

adopted in varied locations and with 

large and diverse groups of students. 

This structure provides incentives for 

applicants to build evidence of the 

effectiveness of their proposed projects 

and to address the barriers to serving 

large numbers of students within 

institutions and across institutions, 

systems, States, regions, or the Nation. 

All FITW grantees are required to use 

part of their budgets to conduct 

independent evaluations (as defined in 

this notice) of their projects. This 

ensures that projects funded under the 

FITW program contribute significantly 

to increasing the amount of rigorous 

research available to practitioners and 

policymakers about which practices 

work, for which types of students, and 

in what contexts. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138– 

1138d. 

We published the notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criterion, and definitions (NPP) for this 

program in the Federal Register on 

February 23, 2015 (80 FR 9414). That 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27037 

notice contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the particular priorities, 

requirements, selection criterion, and 

definitions. 

There are some differences between 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criterion and 

these final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criterion. We 

discuss significant changes from the 

NPP in the Analysis of Comments and 

Changes. We do not discuss minor 

technical or editorial changes. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 38 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criterion, and definitions. We group 

major issues according to subject. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

selection criterion, and definitions since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

Priorities 

Priorities—General 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

additional priorities. One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

a priority focused on improving the 

transition between secondary and 

postsecondary education. The 

commenter suggested that this priority 

could include elements of other 

priorities, such as developing 

alternatives to single measure placement 

strategies mentioned under Priority 1 

(Improving Success in Developmental 

Education) and aligning assessments 

across secondary and postsecondary 

institutions mentioned under Priority 4 

(Developing and Using Assessments of 

Learning). The proposed priority would 

also include setting clear expectations 

about college for high school seniors 

and providing data on first-year college 

students’ performance to their high 

schools. 

Another commenter acknowledged 

that developmental education is a 

barrier for many students, but added 

that students encounter challenges even 

after they have progressed to creditbearing coursework. The commenter 

recommended adding a priority to 

address removing barriers to credit 

accumulation and progression. As 

proposed by the commenter, this 

priority would focus on institutional 

policies and programs that could be 

improved to promote completion and 

could include subparts on redesigning 

gateway courses, particularly in 

mathematics, and academic mapping. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

importance of the issues and topics 

mentioned by the commenters, and 

believe that the existing priorities 

address these issues. Therefore, we 

decline to add additional priorities. 

As noted in the NPP, in any FITW 

competition, we may include priorities 

from the Department’s notice of final 

supplemental priorities and definitions 

for discretionary grant programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425) 

(Supplemental Priorities). The 

Supplemental Priorities include 

priorities on increasing postsecondary 

success, including academic preparation 

for and awareness of postsecondary 

education, and using assessment data to 

inform classroom practices. Therefore, 

we do not believe that it is necessary for 

the Department to develop new 

priorities to address these areas for the 

FITW program. In addition, the 

priorities we establish here would not 

preclude an eligible applicant from 

proposing projects that promote crosssector collaboration, such as between 

secondary and postsecondary 

institutions, provided that the proposed 

project otherwise meets the 

requirements in the relevant priority. 

Further, because promoting student 

success aligns with many of the other 

priorities, we do not think it is 

necessary to add a priority to address 

this topic. 

We also do not consider it necessary 

to create a priority that focuses on 

barriers to credit accumulation because 

many of the final priorities encourage 

applicants to propose new models for 

promoting degree progression. For 

example, we include a subpart under 

Priority 5 (Facilitating Pathways to 

Credentialing and Transfer) that focuses 

on credentialing pathways. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that applicants should be permitted to 

apply under more than one priority. 

One stated that an integrated approach 

to reform is needed to achieve 

substantial improvements in student 

outcomes and recommended that 

applicants be permitted to choose the 

priorities, or combination of priorities, 

which they wish to address. Another 

commenter argued that permitting 

applicants to address more than one 

priority would allow applicants to 

propose more comprehensive solutions 

to the challenges that inhibit student 

success. 

Discussion: We recognize that the 

priorities address a complex range of 

problems in postsecondary education 

that may necessitate complex and 

comprehensive solutions. However, the 

FITW program is designed to generate 

evidence regarding which interventions 

most effectively address these problems. 

In order to demonstrate effectiveness, a 

project must be evaluable, which may 

become more difficult as the complexity 

of the approach increases. Thus, we 

designed the program to focus on one 

identified challenge by requiring 

applicants to address only one of the 

priorities. Nonetheless, the priorities do 

not prescribe the intervention or 

practice that an applicant may propose. 

Accordingly, although an applicant may 

apply under only one priority and the 

application will be evaluated based on 

how well the applicant addresses that 

priority, an applicant may propose 

integrated solutions to the challenges 

identified in one or more of the 

priorities. We also note that the 

Department may choose to apply one or 

more absolute, competitive preference, 

or invitational priorities in any future 

competition in order to generate 

evidence of the effectiveness of 

innovative strategies. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that priority be given to 

projects focused on students who have 

already been served by college readiness 

programs, such as Gaining Early 

Awareness and Readiness for 

Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), so 

as to leverage the investment that has 

already been made in these students and 

increase the likelihood of success. 

Discussion: The Department is unable 

to give preference to grantees in other 

Federal programs, such as GEAR UP, 

and be consistent with the priorities 

which we have established. 

Nonetheless, applicants may be able to 

strengthen their proposals based on the 

other types of support they are 

providing through other resources to a 

particular student population before, 

during, or after the proposed FITW 

intervention. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the FITW program is too narrowly 

focused on completion, and that the 

Department should be concerned about 

affordability and financial aid. The 

commenter suggested that the FITW 

program specify outcomes such as 

indebtedness after college and labor 

market outcomes, including salary. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion, but believe the 

proposed priorities address these 

concerns. For example, Priority 6 

(Increasing the Effectiveness of 

Financial Aid) could include loan 

counseling projects. Priorities 4 

(Developing and Using Assessments of 

Learning) and 5 (Facilitating Pathways 

to Credentialing and Transfer) can be 

used to align curricula and credentials 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
27038 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to career pathways. Priorities 1 

(Improving Success in Developmental 

Education), 2 (Improving Teaching and 

Learning), 3 (Improving Student 

Support Services), and 5 all address 

core issues affecting the cost of higher 

education. The primary aim of the FITW 

program is to support projects that will 

improve the rate of degree and 

credential completion, but student 

indebtedness and labor market 

outcomes may also be addressed. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the solicitation of proposals 

aimed at building an institutional 

culture that supports scaled reforms, 

strategic partnerships, deep and broad 

engagement with faculty, staff, and 

other stakeholders, and constant 

attention to closing achievement gaps. 

Discussion: We believe the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criterion that we establish here can be 

used to address these important goals. 

For instance, Priority 2 (Improving 

Teaching and Learning), subpart (iii) 

speaks specifically to institutional level 

strategies, and Priority 4 (Developing 

and Using Assessments of Learning), 

subpart (ii) speaks to professional 

development or training of faculty and 

staff. In addition, the tiers of FITW 

grants encourage institutional 

partnerships and provide a continuum 

for funding that span from initial, 

localized development to 

implementation on a national scale. In 

addition, Priority 9 (Systems and 

Consortia Focused on Large-Scale 

Impact) and the selection criterion 

(Collaboration) encourage applicants to 

focus on strategic partnerships. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department help 

make college affordable and accessible 

for students and their families by 

decreasing the price of textbooks and 

increasing financial aid. 

Discussion: We think it is important 

to specify here that FITW grantees may 

not disburse project funds to students as 

financial aid. We agree with the 

commenter that affordability is an 

important issue that merits attention. 

However, we think that this topic is 

addressed in the priorities announced in 

this document and in the Supplemental 

Priorities. In FITW Priority 6 (Increasing 

the Effectiveness of Financial Aid), we 

encourage projects that improve the 

effectiveness of existing financial aid 

funds through counseling, need-based 

aid, or other strategies. Supplemental 

Priority 5 (Increasing Postsecondary 

Access, Affordability, and Completion) 

includes a subpart for projects that 

reduce the net cost (e.g., total cost 

minus financial aid) of college. Open 

educational resources could 

additionally be a component of many 

proposed interventions. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 1—Improving Success in 

Developmental Education 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Department revise 

this priority to include specific 

strategies that would support students 

in developmental education. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department prioritize projects that 

blend academic with non-academic 

support systems to track low-income 

learners in developmental education. 

Another commenter suggested that 

younger students would benefit from 

having multiple teachers. A third 

commenter offered support for the 

priority overall and recommended that 

it include partnerships between adult 

education programs and institutions of 

higher education that can address 

learners’ basic skills and English 

language needs. Finally, one commenter 

recommended that three particular 

strategies be given preference: (1) 

Identifying and treating academic needs 

prior to postsecondary enrollment; (2) 

accelerating students’ progress by 

placing them into credit-bearing courses 

with proper support; and (3) integrating 

academic and other support for students 

in developmental education. 

Discussion: An applicant may propose 

any of these strategies to improve 

student success in developmental 

education. We expect applicants to 

consider the needs of their institution 

and available research from the field 

when designing an application to 

address this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for Priority 1, but suggested that 

the Department allow grantees 

flexibility in complying with other 

regulations if this priority is selected for 

use in a competition. The commenter 

raised a concern that grantees could face 

penalties or barriers to implementing 

novel ideas and that implementing a 

project designed to address the priority 

would be unduly burdensome for 

support staff. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concerns, but do not 

believe that the priority creates barriers 

to implementation of interventions 

designed to address the challenges 

identified in the priority. We think it is 

important to clarify that these priorities 

correspond to what the Department 

believes are the greatest challenges in 

postsecondary education and the areas 

most in need of innovative ideas to 

address barriers to postsecondary 

student success. We also believe that 

clear communication, strong 

partnerships, and project leadership are 

important in order to successfully 

implement an intervention. While the 

Department encourages grantees to 

consider and address these issues, we 

do not include them specifically in the 

priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the heavy workload of 

developmental courses may direct time 

and energy away from students’ other 

credit-bearing courses, particularly for 

high-need students. The commenter 

recommended that the Department 

calculate for each application the time 

or opportunity cost to students in 

developmental courses. 

Discussion: We agree that 

developmental coursework may pose 

barriers to student success in degree 

credit-bearing courses. We include a 

subpart under this priority for projects 

that redesign developmental courses 

together with occupational or collegecontent coursework. 

In addition, we note that Requirement 

5 (Independent Evaluation) requires all 

grantees of the FITW program to use 

part of their budgets to conduct an 

independent evaluation of their 

projects. This ensures that projects 

contribute significantly to improving the 

information available to practitioners 

and policymakers about which practices 

work, for which types of students, and 

in what contexts. The results of these 

evaluations will be available to the 

public. Additionally, two of the 

performance measures established for 

the FITW program are cost per 

participant and cost per successful 

outcome, so the Department will collect 

data from grantees on these measures. 

Finally, since the ultimate goal is 

student progress into credit-bearing 

courses, many pathways could be 

proposed. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the mention of 

contextualized learning in a subpart 

under this priority. However, the 

commenter noted that variations in 

accreditation and reporting standards 

across institutions of higher education 

may inhibit their ability to offer more 

courses built around contextualized 

learning. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support and recognize that 

institutions must attend to a variety of 

accountability requirements and 

standards. The subpart mentions 

contextualized developmental 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27039 

education as one example of a strategy 

to address this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 2—Improving Teaching and 

Learning 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for Priority 2. Another 

commenter echoed this support and 

suggested that the priority specifically 

emphasize team teaching and faculty 

professional development. This 

commenter pointed out that team 

teaching has been well researched in 

elementary and secondary schools and 

offered recommendations for particular 

evidence-based strategies to test in 

postsecondary education. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for Priority 2. We 

believe that Priority 2 allows 

considerable flexibility for applicants to 

propose innovative strategies to improve 

teaching and learning. We encourage 

applicants to use strategies that are 

based on the demonstrated needs of 

their institution and on available 

research in the field. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that Priority 2 include a focus on 

system-level or consortia-level projects 

that track learning among transfer 

students. The commenter argued that 

this is particularly important for nontraditional learners who are more 

mobile than traditional learners. 

According to the commenter, learning 

could be measured by proficiency 

development or value-added measures 

of learning associated with a general 

education curriculum. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendation and agree 

that collaboration among institutions 

and other partners can lead to increased 

student success. We believe these 

approaches could be addressed in 

Priorities 4 (Developing and Using 

Assessments of Learning), 5 (Facilitating 

Pathways to Credentialing and 

Transfer), and 9 (Systems and Consortia 

Focused on Large-Scale Impact). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we revise Priority 2 

to include references to hybrid and 

flipped teaching models as well as peersupported learning models, such as 

supplemental learning and peer 

tutoring. The commenter suggested that 

these changes could be added to subpart 

(b)(ii) or as a new subpart. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for this suggestion. We note that subpart 

(b)(ii) of Priority 2 includes a focus on 

online or blended programs. We believe 

that Priority 2 allows considerable 

flexibility for applicants to propose 

innovative strategies to improve 

teaching and learning. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that under-resourced 

institutions may not have the means to 

implement innovative strategies. The 

commenter particularly highlighted the 

urgency of improving resources for 

existing programs for high-need 

students. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for raising this concern. An overall 

focus of FITW is to improve the 

resources available to, and the success 

of, high-need students. The Validation 

and Scale-up tiers of the competition 

have the specific goal of increasing the 

scale and quality of evidence that 

supports practices that have been 

demonstrated to work for these 

students. We also appreciate the 

commenter’s concern regarding the 

ability of under-resourced institutions to 

implement innovative strategies. We 

note that a key feature of the program 

is an emphasis on encouraging crossinstitutional collaborations in order to 

build on a variety of institutional 

resources and strengths. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 3—Improving Student Support 

Services 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed strong support for Priority 3 

and noted the urgency of expanding the 

range and number of students served by 

student support services. One 

commenter noted that the largest barrier 

to student success is adjusting to the 

difference between high school and 

college. Another commenter suggested 

that the evidence for student support 

services is so robust that Priority 3 

should be made an absolute priority in 

future competitions. A third commenter 

suggested that subpart (b)(iii) should be 

made an absolute priority. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for their support of Priority 3. We agree 

that the transition to postsecondary 

education, whether students enter 

directly from high school or from the 

workforce, can be challenging. The goal 

of this priority is to develop, test, and 

bring to scale supports to help students 

through this transitional period as well 

as during other points along their 

postsecondary pathways. 

In response to the comments 

suggesting that this priority be used as 

an absolute priority, we note that the 

Department has the discretion to use 

any of these priorities in future FITW 

competitions. The Department may 

choose which, if any, of the priorities or 

subparts are appropriate for a particular 

competition. If the Department chooses 

to use these priorities, it also has 

discretion to decide how they should be 

designated (i.e., absolute or competitive 

preference). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department give priority to 

projects that propose new 

communication tools, including 

telephone consulting, well-staffed 

satellite locations, and extended inperson service hours. Another 

commenter recommended that 

technology used to automatically 

provide supports or services should also 

include predictive analytics and 

eligibility screening for multiple public 

benefits. A third commenter echoed the 

recommendation for the use of 

predictive analytics. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ suggestions for strategies 

to improve outreach about support 

services. We decline to make the 

proposed changes because we believe 

these suggestions are adequately 

addressed in Priority 3. Furthermore, we 

include predictive analytics as a 

possible strategy under subpart (b)(ii) of 

Priority 3. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

emphasize projects that connect 

students to a range of financial supports. 

One commenter encouraged the 

Department to include projects that 

integrate education and training, income 

and work supports, and financial 

services and asset building for lowincome students. Another commenter 

suggested that resources and services 

should also include connecting students 

to financial counseling. 

Discussion: We agree that financial 

supports are an important type of 

student support service. We decline to 

include the proposed strategies in 

Priority 3, however, because we believe 

that the goal of connecting students to 

financial resources is adequately 

addressed in the priorities. Subpart 

(b)(iii) of Priority 3 mentions providing 

assistance in accessing government 

benefits and other resources. In 

addition, subpart (b)(i) of Priority 6 

(Increasing the Effectiveness of 

Financial Aid) focuses on financial 

literacy counseling and resources. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that Priority 3 recognize 

that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 

transgender (LGBT) students face 

unique challenges. The commenter 

noted that LGBT students need 

specifically tailored supports both 

before and during their postsecondary 

education. The commenter strongly 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
27040 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

urged the Department to prioritize 

proposals that include culturally 

competent services for LGBT students. 

Discussion: As mentioned in the NPP, 

Priority 3 is designed to support 

investments in strategies that are most 

likely to increase access to effective 

student services, particularly for 

individuals from groups that have been 

historically under-served in 

postsecondary education. These 

individuals may include, but are not 

limited to, adult learners, students from 

low-income backgrounds, students of 

color, and LGBT students. We further 

note that recipients of Department 

funding must comply with the 

nondiscrimination requirements of Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, and the Age 

Discrimination Act of 1975. For 

additional information and assistance 

on civil rights laws that may impose 

additional requirements on recipients 

and subrecipients of Federal financial 

assistance, please consult the ‘‘Notice 

on Civil Rights Obligations Applicable 

to the Distribution of Funds under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009,’’ which is available at 

www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/

notices/civil-rights.html. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the Department to include a 

focus on improving outcomes for highachieving, low-income students as a 

subpart of Priority 3 or as a new 

priority. The commenter noted that lowincome students are less likely to attend 

selective postsecondary institutions and 

that the majority of high-achieving, lowincome students do not apply to any 

selective institutions. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion and concur that 

strategies to support low-income 

students merit attention. We note that 

Requirement 1 (Innovations that 

Improve Outcomes for High-Need 

Students) focuses on students from lowincome backgrounds, among other highneed student populations. Because this 

requirement would apply to all grantees, 

regardless of the priority to which they 

responded in their applications, we do 

not believe it is necessary to make the 

proposed change. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters offered 

suggestions for specific strategies to 

improve student advising services. One 

commenter requested that we revise 

subpart (b)(ii) to include holistic 

advising models that incorporate 

multiple factors for determining college 

readiness and academic placements. 

The commenter also suggested that we 

revise subpart (b)(ii) or (b)(iii) to include 

career advising to assist students in 

choosing a major or program of study. 

A second commenter also supported 

the addition of holistic advising models 

in Priority 3. This commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

a focus on collaboration with employers 

and other workforce partners, including 

an explicit mention of work-based 

learning opportunities. The commenter 

suggested that Priority 3 include the 

following strategies: Career counseling 

during initial advising sessions, student 

supports focused on non-cognitive 

factors and students’ external 

responsibilities, the use of credential 

pathways or maps, peer-to-peer 

supports, cohort-based approaches, and 

case management approaches. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for their suggestions. There is a wide 

range of possible strategies to improve 

student support services. The aim of 

Priority 3 is to support projects that are 

subject to rigorous tests to determine 

which of these strategies effectively 

improve student outcomes, particularly 

outcomes related to access, persistence, 

and completion. We decline to make the 

proposed revisions because we do not 

believe it is appropriate for the 

Department to prescribe which 

strategies applicants should use to 

achieve these goals. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 4—Developing and Using 

Assessments of Learning 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed strong support for Priority 4. 

One commenter suggested that this 

priority could be made more inclusive 

by adding specific strategies to serve 

students with disabilities and students 

who are English learners. Another 

commenter emphasized the importance 

of using educational games for formative 

assessments. A third commenter 

recommended that we add assessments 

that measure co-curricular learning, 

such as civic engagement and critical 

thinking skills, under subpart (b). 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for Priority 4. We 

agree that there are many innovative 

strategies to assess a variety of student 

learning outcomes and that strategies 

under this and all of the priorities 

should be inclusive of all students. We 

note that students who are English 

learners are explicitly included in the 

illustrative list of examples included in 

the definition of ‘‘high-need student.’’ 

Students with disabilities could also be 

considered high-need, assuming the 

students are at risk of educational 

failure or otherwise in need of special 

assistance or support. We also note that 

all recipients of Department funds must 

comply with the nondiscrimination 

requirements of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX of 

the Education Amendments of 1972, 

and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

a definition of ‘‘open-source 

assessments.’’ 

Discussion: Although the Department 

does not define open-source 

assessments, in the FITW program we 

may invite applicants to develop 

assessments of learning that are free and 

available for others to use and refine. 

We decline to further define the types 

of assessments that applicants may 

propose. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise subpart (b)(ii) to include 

additional stakeholders who may be 

responsible for student assessments and 

to elaborate on different assessment 

types. Specifically, the commenter 

suggested that the priority include 

student services personnel and mention 

diagnostic, formative, and summative 

assessments. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion. While faculty 

are primarily responsible for assessing 

student learning in the classroom, staff 

may also take part in assessing student 

learning in other settings, such as 

knowledge and competencies gained 

through prior work experience. We do 

not wish to impose limitations on 

applicants by specifying the types of 

allowable assessments, but we have 

revised the priority to refer to the roles 

of staff in assessment activities. 

Changes: We have revised Priority 4, 

subpart (b)(ii) to add a reference to 

professional development for staff, as 

well as faculty. 

Priority 5—Facilitating Pathways to 

Credentialing and Transfer 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed strong support for Priority 5 

and its subparts. One commenter agreed 

that alternative credentialing and 

badging frameworks are needed. 

Another commenter noted that there is 

mounting support and evidence for 

credit for prior learning and 

opportunities for students to earn 

credits prior to enrolling in 

postsecondary education. Echoing this 

support for prior learning credits, a 

third commenter suggested that we 

could strengthen this priority by 

clarifying that prior learning 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27041 

assessments and other similar strategies 

are included under this subpart. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support. We agree that 

alternative credentialing frameworks 

and credit for prior learning are 

promising strategies to recognize 

student learning and ensure that 

students reach completion. However, 

we decline to make the suggested 

changes because we believe that they 

are adequately addressed in the existing 

subparts of the priority. The Department 

does not wish to limit the types of 

interventions that applicants might 

propose through further specification. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter requested 

that the Department include under 

subpart (b)(ii) the validation and 

transfer of credentialing or badging 

frameworks. 

Discussion: Projects designed to create 

or refine credentialing or badging 

frameworks could be proposed under 

this priority. We decline to make the 

requested change in order to avoid being 

overly prescriptive about how to 

improve pathways to credentialing and 

transfer. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Noting that many students 

pursue postsecondary education and 

training that prepares them for careers, 

one commenter recommended that 

Priority 5 explicitly mention strategies 

to improve career pathways. Such 

strategies could include embedding 

work-based learning in credentialing 

pathways and developing career 

pathways for high school students, 

disconnected youth, and adult learners. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for this suggestion. We agree that career 

preparation is indeed a motivating 

factor for many postsecondary students. 

The goal of this priority is to develop 

innovative strategies to accelerate 

completion of a wide range of 

credentials, including portable, 

stackable credentials aligned to career 

pathways, as well as specific pathways 

for individuals who have traditionally 

been underserved in postsecondary 

education. We believe the priority 

adequately reflects this goal. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we expand what we mean by 

seamless transfer of credits to include 

the transfer of postsecondary credits 

between all postsecondary institutions 

within and across States. The 

commenter also recommended that this 

priority emphasize that credits should 

be applicable at the receiving 

institution, and not simply transferrable. 

Furthermore, the commenter urged us to 

include strategies that track student 

mobility and performance across 

institutions. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestions. We decline to 

make the proposed changes because 

several priorities already address the 

commenter’s recommendations. For 

example, the transfer of credits between 

institutions is mentioned under subpart 

(b)(i) of Priority 5 and is not restricted 

to institutions in the same State. In 

addition, multi-site strategies are 

addressed under Priority 9 (Systems and 

Consortia Focused on Large-Scale 

Impact). 

We are not certain what the 

commenter intends by referring to 

credits that are applicable rather than 

simply transferrable. However, the aim 

of Priority 5 is to ensure that students 

accelerate progress towards a degree or 

credential. Thus, we assume that 

strategies to improve credit transfer 

would address how credits would be 

applied towards this end. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 6—Increasing the Effectiveness 

of Financial Aid 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed support for Priority 6. Two 

commenters recommended focusing on 

this priority in future FITW 

competitions. Another commenter noted 

that there is a sufficient number of 

relevant evidence-based strategies to 

warrant making this an absolute 

priority. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ strong support for Priority 

6. We agree that there is a substantial 

body of evidence on the effectiveness of 

financial aid, and we hope that this 

evidence will be useful to potential 

applicants. However, these priorities are 

intended as a menu of options for future 

FITW competitions. The Department 

may choose which, if any, of the 

priorities or subparts are appropriate for 

a particular competition. We note that 

the Department may choose to designate 

any of these priorities as absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational 

in a given FITW competition, and that 

these designations may change in future 

competitions. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to create a competitive 

preference priority for historically black 

colleges and universities (HBCUs) that 

would apply to Priority 6 (‘‘Increasing 

the Effectiveness of Financial Aid’’). 

Discussion: We recognize the critical 

role that minority-serving institutions 

(MSIs), including HBCUs, play in 

helping our country meet the demand 

for more postsecondary degrees and 

credentials. Priority 8 (Improving 

Postsecondary Student Outcomes at 

Minority-Serving Institutions) addresses 

issues at those institutions specifically, 

and this includes HBCUs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended specific strategies to 

increase the effectiveness of financial 

aid. One commenter suggested that the 

Department prioritize projects that use 

restricted access financial aid data or 

flexible need-based aid. A second 

commenter suggested one-stop shops for 

financial aid counseling and resources 

to access other public benefits. A third 

commenter recommended that the 

Department focus on projects that 

expand or restructure institutional aid 

programs. Finally, a fourth commenter 

recommended including projects that 

aim to simplify financial aid and test 

need-plus-merit aid. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for these suggestions. Because these 

projects are permissible under the 

priority as written, and because we want 

to ensure applicants have as much 

flexibility as possible in designing their 

proposed strategies, we decline to make 

the proposed changes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that Priority 6 focus on 

students with the greatest financial 

need. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion and concur that 

college affordability is a pressing 

problem for students with limited 

financial resources. This priority aims to 

simplify access to much needed 

financial supports, particularly those 

that will have a meaningful impact on 

completion. We do not specify the 

categories of students that must be 

served in this or in any other priority. 

However, Requirement 1 (Innovations 

that Improve Outcomes for High-Need 

Students) directs applicants to focus on 

‘‘high-need students,’’ defined in this 

document to include students at risk of 

educational failure or otherwise in need 

of special assistance and support. The 

Department has the discretion to select 

this and other requirements and 

priorities in future FITW competitions. 

If the Department applies this 

requirement in a future FITW 

competition, grantees would be required 

to indicate that they are focused on 

high-need students in response to all 

priorities that they choose to address. 

We believe that this requirement 

addresses the commenter’s concerns 

and goals. 

Changes: None. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
27042 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Priority 7—Implementing Low Cost-High 

Impact Strategies To Improve Student 

Outcomes 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed support for Priority 7. The 

commenters recommended that the 

Department require all future grantees to 

use low cost-high impact strategies. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for this expression of support and 

concur that this is an important 

consideration. The Department has the 

discretion to decide which priorities to 

use in a given year, as well as how to 

designate those priorities (i.e., absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational), 

and may consider the commenters’ 

suggestion in the future. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

addressed strategies that use technology 

in Priority 7. One commenter 

recommended adding projects that 

examine whether access to technology is 

a barrier to effectively implementing 

low cost-high impact strategies. Another 

commenter noted that strategies that use 

technology are not always low cost, and 

recommended adding strategies that do 

not require technology, such as peer 

mentoring. 

Discussion: We appreciate these 

commenters’ suggestions. We note that 

projects that use technology to minimize 

cost are just one example under Priority 

7. We believe that applicants are best 

able to determine how to meet this 

priority and that the priority does not 

limit the way that applicants may 

propose to use technology, if they 

choose to do so. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require grantees to track both costs and 

benefits of their projects. This would 

allow grantees to calculate the return on 

investment (ROI) for their project, 

which could be included in their 

evaluation. The commenter noted that 

the Leveraging What Works program, 

proposed in the Department’s Fiscal 

Year 2016 Budget, would require 

grantees to annually report per-pupil 

expenditures and student outcomes in 

order to calculate ROI for selected 

interventions. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for this recommendation. A primary 

goal of the FITW program is to develop 

and replicate best practices in 

postsecondary education. As the 

commenter noted, FITW grantees are 

already required to conduct an 

independent evaluation of student 

outcomes, as described in Requirement 

5 (Independent Evaluation) of this 

notice. We allow grantees and their 

independent evaluators to determine 

what should be included in this 

evaluation, provided that it is designed 

to meet relevant What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence 

Standards if well-implemented, as 

described in Requirement 6 (Evaluation 

Design). We also note that the 

Department establishes FITW 

performance measures, including cost 

per participant and cost per successful 

outcome. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we include subparts under Priority 

7. The commenter noted that this would 

help applicants understand the goal of 

the priority. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendation. The goal 

of this priority is to solicit projects that 

make efficient use of resources. The 

Department could also choose to use 

this priority in combination with other 

priorities. To ensure that we do not 

limit or narrow the types of projects that 

could be submitted under this priority, 

we decline to provide a specific list of 

tools to meet this goal. We also note 

that, in a particular competition, we can 

use this priority in combination with 

other priorities established in this NFP. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 8—Improving Postsecondary 

Student Outcomes at Minority-Serving 

Institutions 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for Priority 8. One 

commenter noted that the structure of 

the FITW program, in which awards can 

be made as Development, Validation, or 

Scale-up grants, makes it important for 

the Department to fund a diverse range 

of institutions, including two-year, fouryear, public, and private non-profit 

institutions, and MSIs. Another 

commenter recommended that this 

priority be included as a competitive 

preference priority. 

Discussion: We thank these 

commenters for their support. MSIs play 

a critical role in the country’s 

postsecondary education system and in 

meeting our goal of again becoming first 

in the world in postsecondary 

attainment. In future competitions, the 

Department may choose to designate 

this priority as an absolute or 

competitive preference priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

prioritize projects that define, 

operationalize, and measure outcomes 

for high-need student subpopulations 

under this priority. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important to examine outcomes for 

high-need students, which is why the 

FITW program includes evaluation 

requirements (Requirements 5 and 6). 

The evaluation process helps grantees 

focus on which students are served by 

a particular intervention, as well as how 

they are served. We also include a 

definition of ‘‘high-need student’’ that 

illustrates specific student 

subpopulations that fall in this category. 

We believe that the requirement and 

definition meets the commenter’s 

objectives, and that no further changes 

are necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we expand this 

priority to include institutions that 

serve large numbers of low-income 

students. The commenter suggested that 

these institutions could be defined by 

the percentage of students who receive 

Pell grants or other forms of Federal 

student financial aid. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important to support low-income 

students and aim to do so through other 

aspects of this program. Students from 

low-income backgrounds are included 

in the definition of ‘‘high-need 

students.’’ Requirement 1 (Innovations 

that Improve Outcomes for High-Need 

Students) also addresses the needs of 

this group. In contrast to MSIs, which 

have a distinct mission and tradition of 

serving particular student populations, 

institutions that serve large numbers of 

students from low-income backgrounds 

fall into many different categories. 

Indeed, some MSIs might also meet the 

criteria the commenter has suggested. 

Nothing in this priority precludes these 

institutions from participating or 

disadvantages them in the competition. 

To make sure that this priority 

addresses the intended issues, we 

decline to further expand it. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 9—Systems and Consortia 

Focused on Large-Scale Impact 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department prioritize projects 

that track matriculation and transfer 

patterns within and between 

institutions within a postsecondary 

system or consortium. 

Discussion: The aim of this priority is 

to encourage institutions and systems to 

collaborate to address key barriers to 

completion. While transfer certainly can 

be a barrier for some students, we feel 

that this issue is addressed under 

Priority 5 (Facilitating Pathways to 

Credentialing and Transfer). Priority 9 

does not suggest particular strategies 

that systems and consortia should 

address, but rather a particular method 

by which to strengthen any given 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27043 

strategy or approach proposed by the 

applicant. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged us to give additional points 

to consortia of institutions that use 

robust learning communities to share 

knowledge and disseminate best 

practices. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for this suggestion. The purpose of the 

FITW program is to develop and 

disseminate best practices in 

postsecondary education. As the 

commenter noted, learning communities 

are a promising method for sharing 

knowledge with others. However, we 

decline to make the commenter’s 

suggested change because we wish to 

provide applicants with the flexibility to 

determine which methods of developing 

strong consortia would be most 

appropriate. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Noting that applicants 

typically have between 30 and 60 days 

to submit an application after a notice 

inviting applications (NIA) is published, 

one commenter expressed concern that 

the open application period is too short 

to create consortia-based projects. The 

commenter suggested that the 

Department announce the focus of the 

competition in advance of the NIA. 

Alternatively, the Department could 

provide information for several years’ 

competitions at once. This would allow 

consortia time to develop applications 

that meet the necessary evidence and 

large-scale impact requirements. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the work that applicants put 

into developing high-quality projects for 

this and other grant programs. We strive 

to provide as much time as possible to 

allow applicants to prepare their 

submissions. Indeed, one of our goals in 

developing these priorities was to 

provide greater overall guidance to 

potential applicants. Unfortunately, the 

constraints and timing of the annual 

budget and appropriations cycle do not 

permit us to provide information about 

multiple years of a grant program at one 

time. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

strong support for Priority 9, noting that 

once an evidence base is established, 

large-scale reforms are most efficiently 

accomplished through systems. The 

commenter requested that we add a 

focus on State policy. Each grantee 

would be required to develop a policy 

work plan and identify several key 

levers needed to build support for and 

eliminate barriers to system redesign, 

scale, and student success. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support and suggestions. 

States are critical partners in 

postsecondary education, and although 

policy work is not within the scope of 

this program, we encourage grantees to 

consider ways to collaborate with State 

and local stakeholders in their work. 

Priorities 4 (Developing and Using 

Assessments of Learning) and 5 

(Facilitating Pathways to Credentialing 

and Transfer) both include a focus on 

systemic approaches and building 

partnerships. We believe applicants are 

best positioned to determine how to 

build these relationships, and thus we 

decline to make the specific additions 

requested. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we give preference to consortia that 

include MSIs or institutions serving 

large numbers of students of color. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion. The FITW 

program encourages the work of these 

institutions through Priority 8 

(Improving Postsecondary Student 

Outcomes at Minority-Serving 

Institutions) as well as through the 

definition of ‘‘high-need student,’’ 

which includes students of color. The 

Department does not believe that it is 

necessary to establish a priority for a 

particular kind of consortium because 

the Department could choose to 

combine Priority 9 with Priority 8 

(Improving Postsecondary Student 

Outcomes at Minority-Serving 

Institutions). We believe such an 

approach would adequately address the 

commenter’s concern. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that State agencies of higher education 

be included as eligible applicants. 

According to the commenter, consistent 

with the purposes of Priority 9, these 

agencies offer access to statewide data, 

can identify statewide areas of need, 

and are able to coordinate partnerships 

among institutions. 

Discussion: State higher education 

agencies have an important voice in 

postsecondary education systems and 

are eligible to apply for FITW grants. 

Eligible applicants for FITW, as 

described in this document, include an 

institution of higher education, 

combinations of such institutions, and 

other public and private nonprofit 

institutions and agencies. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for Priority 9 and recommended 

that the Department consider how it 

might be applied to Validation and 

Scale-up grants. The commenter pointed 

out that the NPP suggests that this 

priority would only apply to 

Development grants. However, the 

commenter suggested that partners and 

collaborators could also help in 

expanding and adapting evidence-based 

strategies. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for raising this point. To clarify, the 

Department may choose to use any of 

the priorities established in this notice 

in a competition for any type of FITW 

grant (Development, Validation, or 

Scale-up). Although the NPP included a 

background section for Priority 9 that 

mentioned differences between types of 

grants, this was not intended to suggest 

that one type of grant would be better 

suited for this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Requirements 

Requirements—General 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

we stated in the NPP that the 

Department may use requirements, 

selection criteria, and definitions from 

the Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). 

This commenter encouraged us to use 

EDGAR’s evidence definitions and 

regulations supporting the use of 

evidence, data, and evaluation. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion. For FITW, the 

Department is permitted to use the 

evidence definitions and regulations in 

EDGAR as well as those established in 

this document. Thus, the Department 

may exercise the flexibility allowed by 

34 CFR 75.226 (What procedures does 

the Secretary use if the Secretary 

decides to give special consideration to 

applications supported by strong 

evidence of effectiveness, moderate 

evidence of effectiveness, or evidence of 

promise?) to give competitive preference 

or establish a separate competition for 

applications supported by evidence of 

promise, moderate evidence of 

effectiveness, or strong evidence of 

effectiveness. The Department may also 

decide to use evidence-related selection 

criteria in 34 CFR 75.210. However, any 

use of those requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions will be 

described in the notice inviting 

applications. 

Changes: None. 

Requirement 1—Innovations That 

Improve Outcomes for High-Need 

Students 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed strong support for this 

requirement. One commenter 

recommended that grantees be required 

to focus on low-income students and 

students of color. Two commenters 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
27044 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

urged us to emphasize projects that 

enroll and graduate low-income, firstgeneration, and underprepared students. 

One commenter asked the Department 

to include this requirement in all FITW 

competitions. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for their support for this requirement. 

We concur that high-need students 

deserve better outcomes, and the FITW 

program aims to support the 

development and dissemination of tools 

that improve outcomes for these 

students in a variety of ways. The 

Department will consider whether to 

include this requirement in each year’s 

competition. We also note that we allow 

applicants to determine which student 

subpopulations they will serve, and that 

low-income students and students of 

color are included as examples of 

student subpopulations in the definition 

of ‘‘high-need student.’’ This definition 

also includes an illustrative list of 

groups that face unique challenges, such 

as adult learners, working students, 

part-time students, students from lowincome backgrounds, students of color, 

first-generation students, students with 

disabilities, and students who are 

English learners. We are adding 

‘‘students with disabilities’’ to the 

illustrative list in the definition of 

‘‘high-need student’’ for consistency 

with other ED programs, as discussed 

under Definitions. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Stating that a focus on 

high-need students is timely, one 

commenter urged the Department to 

consider how these students are served 

by two-year institutions. These 

institutions vary in their size, location, 

and capacities, but many perform at the 

same level as their peers at four-year 

institutions. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the key role of two-year 

institutions in serving many of our 

country’s high-need students. Two-year 

institutions were among the FITW 

recipients in the FY 2014 competition 

and we encourage such institutions to 

apply in future competitions. Because 

two-year institutions are eligible to 

apply for FITW grants, we do not 

believe it is necessary to revise this 

requirement to address them 

specifically. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department provide 

clarification on the definition of 

‘‘innovation’’ in Requirement 1. For 

Validation and Scale-up grants, the 

commenter asked whether projects that 

make adjustments to proven programs 

in order to reduce costs would meet this 

requirement. In addition, the 

commenter asked whether the planned 

execution of an intervention constitutes 

an innovation. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for raising this issue for clarification. 

For the purposes of the FITW program, 

we define ‘‘innovation’’ to mean a 

process, product, strategy, or practice 

that improves (or is expected to 

improve) significantly upon the 

outcomes reached with status quo 

options and that can ultimately reach 

widespread effective usage. This 

definition is consistent with the 

definition used in the Investing in 

Innovation (i3) program, which is 

FITW’s elementary and secondary 

education counterpart. 

Changes: We have added a definition 

of the term ‘‘innovation’’ to the 

Definitions section of this notice. 

Requirement 2—Eligibility 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

enthusiasm for the inclusion of public 

and private non-profit agencies as 

eligible applicants. Another commenter 

asked for clarification of the definition 

of ‘‘non-profit agencies.’’ 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for this support. We intend to use the 

EDGAR definition of ‘‘nonprofit’’ in 34 

CFR 77.1: ‘‘Nonprofit, as applied to an 

agency, organization, or institution, 

means that it is owned and operated by 

one or more corporations or associations 

whose net earnings do not benefit, and 

cannot lawfully benefit, any private 

shareholder or entity.’’ This definition 

will be included in any NIA that 

includes this requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked for 

State systems of higher education to be 

considered eligible applicants. The 

commenter noted that these systems 

have a unique advantage in conducting 

rigorous evaluations due to their access 

to large numbers of students and robust 

datasets. 

Discussion: State higher education 

agencies have an important voice in 

postsecondary education systems and 

are eligible to apply for FITW grants. 

Eligible applicants for FITW include an 

institution of higher education, 

combinations of such institutions, and 

other public and private nonprofit 

institutions and agencies. 

Changes: None. 

Requirement 3—Types of FITW Grants 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department specify that Scaleup grants include projects that use 

predictive analytics. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion, but decline to 

make this change. The purpose of this 

section is to identify types of grants, 

rather than define specific projects they 

could include. Several of the priorities 

could incorporate use of predictive 

analytics. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

questioned our description of 

Development grant projects in the 

background section of the NPP as 

‘‘novel.’’ One commenter asked us to 

clarify that innovations included in 

Development grant projects may not 

always be novel, but rather best 

practices that are brought to scale. The 

commenter suggested that projects 

should be required to innovate 

significantly from current design. 

Another commenter asked for examples 

of projects that would be considered 

novel and yet are supported by 

empirical evidence. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for these suggestions. As discussed 

above, we have added a definition of 

‘‘innovation’’ in order to clarify 

expectations for projects under all grant 

types. The rationale for adding this 

definition is discussed elsewhere in this 

document. We believe that this 

definition clarifies the Department’s 

expectations for the ways in which 

projects should differ from current 

design and can help applicants 

determine which types of projects 

would be considered novel and are 

supported by empirical evidence 

Changes: We have added a definition 

of the term ‘‘innovation’’ to the 

Definitions section of this notice. 

Comment: One commenter asked us 

to clarify whether rigorous evaluations, 

such as the use of randomized 

controlled trials, are the preferred 

methodology for conducting 

independent evaluations of 

Development grant projects. 

Discussion: Requirements 4 (Evidence 

and Sample Size Standards) and 5 

(Independent Evaluation) address 

expectations for evaluations of all types 

of grants. Further, Requirement 6 

(Evaluation Design) is designed to 

indicate that the Secretary announces in 

the NIA which evaluation standard 

applies to which grant type. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked us 

to further clarify the difference between 

Validation and Scale-up grants. The 

commenter asked whether projects that 

replicate and adapt proven programs in 

new locations (for example, throughout 

colleges in a State or at several colleges 

in a system) would qualify for a 

Validation or a Scale-up grant. 

Discussion: The primary difference 

between a Validation and a Scale-up 

grant lies in the level of evidence 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27045 

supporting the proposed project. 

Validation grants must be supported by 

moderate evidence of effectiveness as 

defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c) whereas 

Scale-up grants would likely be 

supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness, as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c). Additionally, Scale-up grants 

would apply to projects with a larger 

number of sites, a greater variety of 

contexts, and a greater variety of 

students than Validation grants. These 

differences are explained in the 

Background section of the NPP. 

Changes: None. 

Requirement 4—Evidence and Sample 

Size Standards 

Comment: One commenter asked us 

to clarify how the term ‘‘multi-site’’ is 

defined for Scale-up grants. The 

commenter asked whether a project that 

includes multiple colleges within the 

same system or multiple campuses 

within the same institution would meet 

the multi-site requirement. 

Discussion: In 34 CFR 77.1, we define 

‘‘multi-site sample’’ as ‘‘more than one 

site, where site can be defined as an 

LEA, locality, or State.’’ Subpart (d) of 

Requirement 4 further clarifies that a 

multi-site sample can include multiple 

institutions, while a scaled multi-site 

sample can include sites across a system 

of institutions, or across institutions in 

a State, region, labor market sector, or 

nationwide. We will announce in the 

NIA for any given FITW competition 

which requirement will apply to the 

Scale-up tier. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked for 

further clarification on overlapping 

samples as used for Scale-up grants. The 

commenter asked to what extent and 

along what dimensions populations 

should be required to overlap with the 

sample in a supporting study. 

Discussion: We refer the commenter 

to subpart (e) of Requirement 4, which 

clarifies that projects must include the 

core aspects of a process, product, 

strategy, or practice from a supporting 

study as closely as possible. If the 

project proposes to adapt an 

intervention from a study, the applicant 

must provide justifications for these 

changes. It is the applicant’s 

responsibility to determine whether and 

to what extent the population in the 

supporting study was a core aspect of its 

implementation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to consider expanding the 

evidence requirements beyond the 

WWC Evidence Standards. The 

commenter suggested that evidence 

could be based on rigorous assessments 

with strong designs conducted by 

reputable evaluators. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for this suggestion. We note that the 

evidence standards included in this 

program meet the commenter’s 

objectives. These standards include 

rigorous assessments, strong designs, 

and reputable evaluators. The evidence 

standards we use in the FITW program 

are consistent with EDGAR and are used 

widely across the Department’s 

discretionary grant programs. We 

choose to use the WWC Evidence 

Standards so that this program can 

produce evidence of the highest 

possible quality. The WWC Evidence 

Standards were developed based on 

years of interaction with leading experts 

in program evaluation in the education 

field. 

Changes: None. 

Requirement 5—Evaluation 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we require grantees to report 

disaggregated student outcome data. At 

a minimum, the commenter proposed 

that we require data to be disaggregated 

by outcomes for low-income students 

and students of color. In addition, the 

commenter suggested that we require 

grantees to report outcomes for other 

high-need student populations. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for this suggestion. We agree that 

useable data on outcomes for high-need 

student subpopulations are critical to 

improving programs and services. 

However, we decline to make the 

proposed changes because this may not 

be possible or appropriate for all 

projects. We also note that the 

Department has established 

performance measures for FITW, 

including cost per successful outcome. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Through the FITW 

program, the Department seeks to fund 

projects that can make a significant 

contribution to increasing knowledge 

about effective strategies for improving 

postsecondary education outcomes. For 

this reason, all FITW projects are 

required to use part of their budgets to 

conduct independent evaluations of 

their projects. Evaluation design is a 

significant consideration in ensuring 

that the independent evaluations help 

build evidence of effectiveness and 

generate replicable results. For that 

reason, we proposed in Requirement 5 

that, in connection with the requirement 

that grantees conduct an independent 

evaluation, the evaluation design meet 

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards. Although we believe that 

meeting these evidence standards is the 

best way to ensure a rigorous 

evaluation, we also recognize that these 

evaluation and evidence requirements 

may be new to many potential FITW 

applicants. Furthermore, through the 

selection criteria established in EDGAR, 

we can encourage applicants to propose 

rigorous project evaluations through the 

What Works Clearinghouse selection 

factors. Such an approach, which 

enables the Department to rely on the 

judgment of non-Federal reviewers with 

expertise in evaluation design without 

imposing a pass-fail requirement, may 

be preferable in any given year, 

particularly in the early years of this 

program. Accordingly, we believe that it 

would benefit potential applicants for 

the Department to retain the authority to 

use the independent evaluation 

requirement without using the 

requirement relating to evaluation 

design. We have clarified this 

distinction in the requirements. 

Changes: We have separated proposed 

Requirement 5 into two requirements— 

Requirement 5, relating to the 

independent evaluation requirement, 

and Requirement 6, relating to 

evaluation design. We have renumbered 

the remaining requirements, 

accordingly. 

Definitions 

High-Need Student 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify the definition of ‘‘high-need 

student’’ to ensure that projects focus on 

low-income, first-generation, and 

academically underprepared students. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern that these 

students face unique challenges. 

However, we believe that the proposed 

definition of ‘‘high-need student’’ 

adequately includes the recommended 

student groups. The definition included 

in the NPP includes students who are at 

risk of educational failure, which could 

include students from low-income 

backgrounds and first-generation 

students. This definition also includes 

an illustrative list of groups that face 

unique challenges, such as adult 

learners, working students, part-time 

students, students from low-income 

backgrounds, students of color, firstgeneration students, students with 

disabilities, and students who are 

English learners. Very similar 

definitions are used in other Department 

programs, including i3 and Race to the 

Top, as well as in the Supplemental 

Priorities. We use the same definition in 

order to maintain consistency across 

multiple programs. We are adding 

‘‘students with disabilities’’ to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
27046 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

illustrative list in the definition of 

‘‘high-need student’’ for consistency 

with other ED programs. 

Changes: We have added ‘‘students 

with disabilities’’ to this definition. 

Minority-Serving Institution 

Comment: Two commenters 

addressed the definition of MSI. One 

commenter asserted that, similar to 

MSIs, community colleges enroll and 

serve a disproportionate number of 

high-need students. The commenter 

asked the Department to consider the 

unique operational issues of two-year 

colleges, even though they may not have 

the requisite enrollments of students of 

color to qualify as MSIs. 

Another commenter proposed, in lieu 

of the definition for MSI, a new 

definition for Institutions with LargeScale Impact for Minority Students. 

This proposed definition would refer to 

two-year or four-year institutions with 

sufficient capacity to affect large-scale 

change for Black, Latino, or American 

Indian students. The commenter 

proposed that an institution would be 

considered to have sufficient capacity 

under this definition if it enrolled at 

least 3,000 Black, Latino, or American 

Indian students. 

Discussion: The definition of MSI 

comes from the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended (HEA), and our intent 

is to be consistent with the law. We 

appreciate the commenters’ interest in 

serving high-need students. We also 

agree that community colleges play a 

critical role in serving high-need 

students across the country. In addition, 

many community colleges are in fact 

MSIs. However, we decline to make the 

proposed changes to the definition of 

MSIs. Nothing in this definition, the 

priorities, or the authorizing statute 

prohibits eligible community colleges, 

regardless of MSI status, from applying 

to FITW programs, provided that the 

proposed project otherwise meets the 

requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criterion—Collaborations 

Comment: One commenter supported 

this selection criterion. The commenter 

recommended that we include more 

specific emphasis on cross-functional 

collaborations and holistic program 

design, to promote continuous 

improvement and foster institutional 

cultures that embrace feedback. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for this suggestion. We agree that these 

types of collaborations can foster 

success. However, we believe that 

applicants are best equipped to design 

the collaborative structures that meet 

their needs. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities 

Priority 1: Improving Success in 

Developmental Education 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to improve 

student success in developmental 

education or accelerate student progress 

into credit-bearing postsecondary 

courses; or 

(b) Projects designed to improve 

student success in developmental 

education or accelerate student progress 

into credit-bearing postsecondary 

courses through one or more of the 

following: 

(i) Identifying and treating academic 

needs prior to postsecondary 

enrollment, including while in middle 

or high school, through strategies such 

as partnerships between K–12 and 

postsecondary institutions; 

(ii) Diagnosing students’ 

developmental education needs at the 

time of or after postsecondary 

enrollment, such as by developing 

alternatives to single measure placement 

strategies, and identifying specific 

content gaps in order to customize 

instruction to an individual student’s 

needs; 

(iii) Offering alternative pathways in 

mathematics, such as non-Algebra based 

coursework for non-math and science 

fields; 

(iv) Accelerating students’ progress in 

completing developmental education, 

through strategies such as modularized, 

fast-tracked, or self-paced courses or 

placing students whose academic 

performance is one or more levels below 

that required for credit-bearing courses 

into credit-bearing courses with 

academic supports; 

(v) Redesigning developmental 

education courses or programs through 

strategies such as contextualization of 

developmental coursework together 

with occupational or college-content 

coursework; and 

(vi) Integrating academic and other 

supports for students in developmental 

education. 

Priority 2: Improving Teaching and 

Learning 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to improve 

teaching and learning; or 

(b) Projects designed to improve 

teaching and learning through one or 

more of the following: 

(i) Instruction-level tools or strategies 

such as adaptive learning technology, 

educational games, personalized 

learning, active- or project-based 

learning, faculty-centered strategies that 

systematically improve the quality of 

teaching, or multi-disciplinary efforts 

focused on improving instructional 

experiences. 

(ii) Program-level strategies such as 

competency-based programs that are 

designed with faculty, industry, 

employer, and expert engagement, use 

rigorous methods to define 

competencies, and utilize externally 

validated assessments, online or 

blended programs, or joint offering of 

programs across institutions. 

(iii) Institution-level tools or strategies 

such as faculty-centered strategies to 

improve teaching across an institution, 

use of open educational resources, or 

tailoring academic content and delivery 

to serve the needs of non-traditional 

students. 

Priority 3: Improving Student Support 

Services 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to improve the 

supports or services provided to 

students prior to or during the students’ 

enrollment in postsecondary education; 

or 

(b) Projects designed to improve the 

supports or services provided to 

students prior to or during the students’ 

enrollment in postsecondary education 

through one or more of the following: 

(i) Integrating student support 

services, including with academic 

advising and instruction. 

(ii) Individualizing or personalizing 

support services, such as advising, 

coaching, tutoring, or mentoring, to 

students and their identified needs 

using tools or strategies such as 

predictive analytics to identify students 

who may need specific supports, or 

behavioral interventions used to provide 

timely, relevant, and actionable 

information for students at critical 

points such as when they may be at risk 

of dropping out. 

(iii) Connecting students to resources 

or services other than those typically 

provided by postsecondary institutions, 

such as providing assistance in 

accessing government benefits, 

transportation assistance, medical, 

health, or nutritional resources and 

services, child care, housing, or legal 

services. 

(iv) Utilizing technology such as 

digital messaging to provide supports or 

services systematically. 

Priority 4: Developing and Using 

Assessments of Learning 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects that support the 

development and use of externally 

validated assessments of student 

learning and stated learning goals; or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27047 

(b) Projects that support the 

development and use of externally 

validated assessments of student 

learning and stated learning goals 

through one or more of the following: 

(i) Alternative assessment tools or 

strategies such as micro- or competencybased assessments, assessments 

embedded in curriculum, or 

simulations, games, or other technologybased assessment approaches. 

(ii) Professional development or 

training of faculty and staff on the 

approaches to developing, using, and 

interpreting assessments. 

(iii) Combining or sequencing 

assessments from multiple sources to 

strengthen diagnostic capabilities. 

(iv) Aligning assessments across 

sectors and institutions, such as across 

kindergarten through grade 12 and 

postsecondary education systems or 

across two-year and four-year 

institutions, to improve college 

readiness and content delivery. 

(v) Open-source assessments. 

Priority 5: Facilitating Pathways to 

Credentialing and Transfer 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to develop and 

implement systems and practices to 

capture and aggregate credit or other 

evidence of knowledge and skills 

towards postsecondary degrees or 

credentials; or 

(b) Projects designed to develop and 

implement systems and practices to 

capture and aggregate credit or other 

evidence of knowledge and skills 

towards postsecondary degrees or 

credentials through one or more of the 

following: 

(i) Seamless transfer of credits 

between postsecondary institutions. 

(ii) Validation and transfer of credit 

for learning or learning experiences 

from non-institutional sources. 

(iii) Alternate credentialing or badging 

frameworks. 

(iv) Opportunities for students to earn 

college credits prior to postsecondary 

enrollment, such as through dual 

enrollment, dual degree, dual 

admission, or early college programs. 

Priority 6: Increasing the Effectiveness of 

Financial Aid 

The Secretary gives priority to: 

(a) Projects designed to improve the 

effectiveness of financial aid; or 

(b) Projects designed to improve the 

effectiveness of financial aid through 

one or more of the following: 

(i) Counseling, advising, creation of 

information and resources, and other 

support activities on higher education 

financing and financial literacy 

delivered by financial aid offices or 

integrated with other support services 

provided by institutions, including on 

student loan repayment options such as 

income-driven repayment plans and 

public service loan forgiveness and debt 

management. 

(ii) Personalized approaches to 

financial aid delivery, counseling, 

advising, and other support activities, 

which may include early warning 

systems, use of predictive analytics, 

need-based aid, emergency aid, or 

bonuses or other incentives for 

successful outcomes such as on-time 

academic progress and completion. 

Priority 7: Implementing Low Cost-High 

Impact Strategies to Improve Student 

Outcomes 

The Secretary gives priority to 

projects that use low-cost tools or 

strategies, such as those that use 

technology, that result in a high impact 

on student outcomes. 

Priority 8: Improving Postsecondary 

Student Outcomes at Minority-Serving 

Institutions 

The Secretary gives priority to 

projects designed to improve student 

outcomes at Minority-Serving 

Institutions (as defined in this notice). 

Priority 9: Systems and Consortia 

Focused on Large-scale Impact 

The Secretary gives priority to 

projects that involve consortia of 

institutions, including across a college 

or university system, and partnerships 

with leading experts that are 

implemented at multiple sites with large 

sample sizes to allow for more rapid 

development, evaluation, and scaling of 

practices determined to be effective. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Requirements 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Postsecondary Education establishes the 

following requirements for this program. 

We may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

1. Innovations that Improve Outcomes 

for High-Need Students: The Secretary 

may require that— 

(a) Grantees must implement projects 

designed to improve outcomes of highneed students (as defined in this notice) 

in postsecondary education; or 

(b) Grantees must implement projects 

designed to improve one or more of the 

following outcomes of high-need 

students (as defined in this notice) in 

postsecondary education: 

(i) Persistence. 

(ii) Academic progress. 

(iii) Time to degree. 

(iv) Completion. 

2. Eligibility: The Secretary may make 

grants to, or enter into contracts with, 

one or more of the following: 

An institution of higher education, 

combinations of such institutions, and 

other public and private nonprofit 

institutions and agencies. 

The Secretary will announce the 

eligible applicants in the NIA. 

3. Types of FITW Grants: Awards may 

be made for Development grants, 

Validation grants, and Scale-up grants. 

The Secretary will announce the type of 

grants that applicants may apply for in 

the NIA. 

4. Evidence and Sample Size 

Standards: To be eligible for an award— 

(a) An application for a Development 

grant must be supported by one of the 

following: 

(i) Evidence of promise (as defined in 

34 CFR 77.1(c)). 

(ii) Strong theory (as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1(c)). 

(iii) Evidence of promise or strong 

theory. 

The Secretary will announce in the 

NIA which evidence standard will 

apply to a Development grant in a given 

competition. Under (a)(iii), applicants 

must identify whether their application 

is supported by evidence of promise or 

strong theory. 

(b) An application for a Validation 

grant must be supported by moderate 

evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 

34 CFR 77.1(c)). 

(c) An application for a Scale-up grant 

must be supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c)). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
27048 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) The Secretary may require that an 

application for a Development grant, 

Validation grant, or Scale-up grant must 

be supported by one or more of the 

following levels of sample size: 

(i) Large sample (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c)). 

(ii) Multi-site sample (as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1(c)), such as at multiple 

institutions. 

(iii) Scaled multi-site sample, such as 

across a system of institutions, across 

institutions in a State, a region, or 

nationally, or across institutions in a 

labor market sector. 

The Secretary will announce in the 

NIA which sample size standards will 

apply to each type of FITW grant 

(Development, Validation, or Scale-up) 

that is available. 

(e) Where evidence of promise, 

moderate evidence of effectiveness, or 

strong evidence of effectiveness is 

required to receive a grant, an 

applicant’s project must propose to 

implement the core aspects of the 

process, product, strategy, or practice 

from the supporting study as closely as 

possible. Where modifications to a cited 

process, product, strategy, or practice 

will be made to account for student or 

institutional characteristics, resource 

limitations, or other special factors or to 

address deficiencies identified by the 

cited study, the applicant must provide 

a justification or basis for the 

modifications. Modifications may not be 

proposed to the core aspects of any cited 

process, product, strategy, or practice. 

5. Independent Evaluation: 

(a) The grantee must conduct an 

Independent Evaluation (as defined in 

this notice) of its project. The evaluation 

must estimate the impact of the FITWsupported practice (as implemented at 

the proposed level of scale) on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c)). 

(b) The grantee must make broadly 

available, digitally and free of charge, 

through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed 

journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) 

mechanisms, the results of any 

evaluations it conducts of its funded 

activities. The grantee must also ensure 

that the data from its evaluation are 

made available to third-party 

researchers consistent with applicable 

privacy requirements. 

(c) The grantee and its independent 

evaluator must agree to cooperate on an 

ongoing basis with any technical 

assistance provided by the Department 

or its contractor, including any 

technical assistance provided to ensure 

that the evaluation design meets the 

required evaluation standards, and 

comply with the requirements of any 

evaluation of the program conducted by 

the Department. This includes 

providing to the Department, within 100 

days of a grant award, an updated 

comprehensive evaluation plan in a 

format and using such tools as the 

Department may require. Grantees must 

update this evaluation plan at least 

annually to reflect any changes to the 

evaluation and provide the updated 

evaluation plan to the Department. All 

of these updates must be consistent with 

the scope and objectives of the approved 

application. 

6. Evaluation Design: The evaluation 

design for a Development grant, 

Validation grant, or Scale-up grant must 

meet one or either of the following 

standards: 

(i) What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards (as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1(c)) without reservations; or 

(ii) What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards (as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1(c)) with reservations. 

The Secretary will announce in the 

NIA the evaluation standard(s) that will 

apply to each type of FITW grant 

(Development, Validation, or Scale-up) 

that is available. 

7. Funding Categories: An applicant 

will be considered for an award only for 

the type of FITW grant (Development, 

Validation, and Scale-up) for which it 

applies. An applicant may not submit 

an application for the same proposed 

project under more than one type of 

grant. 

8. Limit on Grant Awards: The 

Secretary may choose to deny the award 

of a grant to an applicant if the 

applicant already holds an active FITW 

grant from a previous FITW competition 

or, if awarded, would result in the 

applicant receiving more than one FITW 

grant in the same year. 

9. Management Plan: Within 100 days 

of a grant award, the grantee must 

provide an updated comprehensive 

management plan for the approved 

project in a format and using such tools 

as the Department may require. This 

management plan must include detailed 

information about implementation of 

the first year of the grant, including key 

milestones, staffing details, and other 

information that the Department may 

require. It must also include a complete 

list of performance metrics, including 

baseline measures and annual targets. 

The grantee must update this 

management plan at least annually to 

reflect implementation of subsequent 

years of the project and provide the 

updated management plan to the 

Department. 

Final Selection Criterion 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Postsecondary Education establishes the 

following selection criterion for 

evaluating an application under this 

program. We may apply this criterion or 

any of the selection criteria from 34 CFR 

part 75 in any year in which this 

program is in effect. In the NIA, the 

application package, or both, we will 

announce the maximum points assigned 

to each selection criteria. 

1. Collaborations: The extent to which 

the proposed project is designed to 

engage individuals or entities with 

expertise, experience, and knowledge 

regarding the project’s activities, such as 

postsecondary institutions, non-profit 

organizations, experts, academics, and 

practitioners. 

Final Definitions 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Postsecondary Education establishes the 

following definitions for this program. 

We may apply one or more of these 

definitions in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

1. High-need student means a student 

at risk of educational failure or 

otherwise in need of special assistance 

and support such as adult learners, 

working students, part-time students, 

students from low-income backgrounds, 

students of color, first-generation 

students, students with disabilities, and 

students who are English learners. Note: 

The Department acknowledges that the 

definition of high-need students is not 

limited to these categories. This 

definition is for illustrative purposes 

and may include other categories of 

high-need students. 

2. Independent evaluation means an 

evaluation that is designed and carried 

out independent of and external to the 

grantee, but in coordination with any 

employees of the grantee who develop 

a process, product, strategy, or practice 

and are implementing it. 

3. Innovation means a process, 

product, strategy, or practice that 

improves (or is expected to improve) 

significantly upon the outcomes reached 

with status quo options and that can 

ultimately reach widespread effective 

usage. 

4. Minority-serving institution means 

an institution that is eligible to receive 

assistance under sections 316 through 

320 of part A of Title III, under part B 

of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice of final priorities does 

not solicit applications. In any year in which 

we choose to use one or more of these 

priorities, requirements, selection criterion, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27049 

and definitions, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities, 

requirements, selection criterion, and 

definitions only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Summary of potential costs and 

benefits: 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of the FITW program are 

the generation of a body of evidence for 

what works in postsecondary education 

through development, evaluation, and 

dissemination of innovative strategies to 

support students who are at risk of 

failure in persisting in and completing 

their postsecondary programs of study. 

The priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criterion 

announced in this notice will provide 

applicants a framework for achieving 

the goals and objectives of the FITW 

program. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Delegation of Authority: The Secretary 

of Education has delegated authority to 

Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under 

Secretary, to perform the functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Postsecondary Education. 

Dated: May 5, 2015. 

Jamienne S. Studley, 

Deputy Under Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11333 Filed 5–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3