[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4228-4242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2023-OESE-0209]


Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Comprehensive Centers Program

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
under the Comprehensive Centers Program, Assistance Listing Number 
84.283B. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for 
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We intend to 
award grants to establish Comprehensive Centers that provide high-
quality capacity-building services to State, regional, and local 
educational agencies and schools that improve educational opportunities 
and outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of 
instruction for all students.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 22, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation 
or cannot otherwise submit your comments via www.regulations.gov, 
please contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Please go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``FAQ.''
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michelle Daley. Telephone: (202) 
987-1057. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d798928492f994b8baa7a5b2bfb2b9a4bea1b294b2b9a3b2a5a497b2b3f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aae5eff9ef84e9c5c7dad8cfc2cfc4d9c3dccfe9cfc4decfd8d9eacfce84cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria, please identify clearly the specific proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that each 
comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect public 
comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria by accessing Regulations.gov. To inspect comments in 
person, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The Comprehensive Centers Program supports the 
establishment of Comprehensive Centers to provide capacity-building 
services to State educational agencies (SEAs), regional educational 
agencies (REAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools that 
improve educational outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the 
quality of instruction for all students, and particularly for groups of 
students with the greatest need, including students from low-income 
families and students attending schools implementing comprehensive 
support and improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and 
improvement activities under section 1111(d) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
    Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical 
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
    Public Participation: In developing proposed priorities for this 
program, the Department consulted with education stakeholders, 
including through Regional Advisory Committees (RACs) established under 
section 206 of the ETAA, Tribes, chief State school officers, chief 
executive officers of States, and Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) 
governing boards.
    Tribal Consultation: Consistent with Executive Order 13175 and the 
Department's Tribal consultation policy, on January 24, 2023, the 
Department conducted a Tribal Consultation to gather perspectives from 
Tribal leaders, including Tribal educational agency (TEA) leaders, to 
inform the development of the Department's FY 2024 Comprehensive Center 
grant competition. More than 150 attendees joined the consultation.
    Commenters highlighted the importance of including Tribes in 
developing Centers' five-year service plans to carry out authorized 
activities for the Comprehensive Centers Program. Commenters emphasized 
Tribal inclusion on Center advisory boards (described in section 203(g) 
of the ETAA) and participation in annual planning to align goals among 
SEAs, LEAs, IHEs, and TEAs to generate greater synergy for more 
meaningful changes and success for Native persons within the 
educational system.
    Tribal leaders broadly affirmed the need for capacity-building 
services within the areas of focus of the Comprehensive Centers, in the 
following order of importance: (1) implement and scale up evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions that directly benefit 
recipients that have disadvantaged students or high percentages or 
numbers of students from

[[Page 4229]]

low-income families; (2) support Tribal schools that are implementing 
support and improvement activities; (3) implement and scale up 
evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that address the 
unique educational obstacles faced by rural populations; and (4) 
address corrective actions or results from audit findings and 
monitoring conducted by the Department at the request of the client. In 
addition, Tribal leaders identified specific needs for services in: (1) 
supporting rural areas with shortages of educators and student support 
staff, such as school psychologists, school social workers, and 
instructional coaches who have experience with trauma-informed 
instruction; (2) allocating resources to train and recruit 
professionals to work in Tribal communities; and (3) supporting TEAs 
with ongoing administrative functions.
    Regional Advisory Committees: In accordance with ETAA section 206, 
the Secretary established 10 RACs to conduct an education needs 
assessment and identify each region's most critical educational needs 
and develop recommendations for technical assistance to meet those 
needs. The RACs met and engaged their respective constituencies to make 
their assessments and recommendations between August and November 2023. 
Final RAC reports were published in December 2023 on the Department's 
website at https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/program-and-grantee-support-services/comprehensive-centers-program/regional-advisory-committees/.
    While specific needs and recommendations varied by region, the most 
common needs identified across all 10 RACs were: (1) supporting 
teachers, school leaders, and school personnel, including addressing 
workforce shortages, supporting educator preparation programs and 
pathways, strengthening recruitment and retention, and diversifying the 
educator workforce; (2) supporting strong instruction and academic 
achievement, including supporting evidence-based math and literacy 
instruction, ensuring equity and addressing issues of 
disproportionality, addressing opportunity gaps to promote academic 
achievement and growth for all learners, and promoting access to a 
high-quality early childhood education; (3) supporting student 
populations with specific learning needs, including early grades, 
English learners, multilingual learners, children with disabilities, 
and growing populations of refugee and immigrant children and youth; 
(4) supporting student well-being and mental health; (5) promoting safe 
and engaged school communities, including promoting authentic parent 
and community engagement, positive school climate, and addressing 
issues of chronic absenteeism; and (6) promoting career and 
postsecondary educational pathways.
    Education stakeholders noted that identified needs were not 
mutually exclusive and there is considerable overlap across educational 
priorities that may require coordinated approaches to implementing ESEA 
programs, promoting strong instruction, supporting educators, ensuring 
equity, and supporting school communities' academic, social emotional, 
and mental health needs. Detailed recommendations for services to meet 
those needs are included in the individual report from each RAC. Some 
examples of RAC recommendations included: (1) providing professional 
development to assist teachers in translating evidence-based practices 
into educator-friendly tools, resources, and training; (2) creating 
resources to support effective family engagement and improve academic 
achievement; (3) supporting data use and disaggregation to better 
identify and understand the needs of special student populations; (4) 
identifying and disseminating evidence-based approaches to meeting 
student instructional needs; (5) developing, implementing, and 
evaluating ``grow your own'' and apprenticeship programs as well as 
alternative pathways into the teaching profession; (6) developing 
targeted recruitment strategies including financial incentives, 
scholarship programs, and marketing campaigns highlighting the value of 
the profession to attract more individuals from diverse backgrounds to 
the profession; (7) supporting LEAs to provide differentiated and 
evidence-based professional learning opportunities to both novice and 
experienced teachers that are specific to the needs and context of 
their unique LEA and/or school; (8) supporting educators in identifying 
high-quality curricular and digital learning materials; (9) supporting 
SEAs and LEAs in developing new and innovative secondary and 
postsecondary pathways that emphasize applied learning and mastery; 
(10) supporting partnerships with local communities, local Tribes, and 
Tribal governments to identify local career needs and work-based 
learning opportunities and appropriate pathways; (11) supporting LEAs 
in developing resource allocation systems that allow resources to be 
focused on student learning (e.g., budgeting, scheduling, resourcing, 
and long-term planning); and (12) developing models for multi-tiered 
systems of support (MTSS) and integrating Positive Behavioral 
Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to address school and community 
mental health needs. The RACs noted that professional development and 
technical assistance must be grounded in adult learning theory, address 
the needs of educators and students of color, and, when proven 
effective, be shared across the region and with other regions.

Proposed Priorities

    We propose three priorities. The Assistant Secretary may use one or 
more of these priorities for the FY 2024 Comprehensive Centers Program 
competition or for any subsequent competition.
    Background:
    The ESEA holds States accountable for closing achievement gaps and 
ensuring that all children, regardless of race, ethnicity, family 
income, English language proficiency, or disability, receive a high-
quality education and meet challenging State academic standards.
    The ETAA authorizes support for not less than 20 grants to 
establish Comprehensive Centers to support State and local educational 
systems to implement activities described in the ESEA to improve 
academic opportunities and outcomes for students. Centers are operated 
through cooperative agreements with the U.S. Department of Education. 
Centers focus on building the capacity of those receiving Comprehensive 
Center services (recipients) in one of four dimensions of capacity-
building: human, organizational, policy, and resource. Recipients 
primarily include staff of SEAs and, as appropriate, REAs, including 
TEAs as defined in ESEA section 6132(b)(3); LEAs; and schools.
    Under section 203(a)(2) of the ETAA, the Department must establish 
at least one Center in each of the 10 geographic regions served by the 
Department's Regional Educational Laboratories authorized under section 
941(h) of the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and 
Improvement Act of 1994. The proposed funding for Centers established 
under the ETAA must take into consideration the school-age population, 
proportion of economically disadvantaged students, increased cost 
burdens of service delivery in rural areas, and number of schools 
identified for improvement under ESEA section 1111(d).
    Section 203(d) of the ETAA directs the Centers to provide 
assistance to

[[Page 4230]]

schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). Additionally, 
pursuant to authority granted to the Secretary in Title III of Division 
H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), and 
the Consolidated Appropriations Acts for 2017 through the last act in 
2023, Comprehensive Center services have been provided to the BIE and 
schools within its jurisdiction.
    The Department last conducted a competition in 2019 and made five-
year awards to 19 Regional Centers and one National Comprehensive 
Center (National Center). The 19 Regional Centers provide high-quality 
intensive capacity-building services to State clients and recipients to 
identify, implement, and sustain effective evidence-based (as defined 
in 34 CFR 77.1) practices that support improved educator and student 
outcomes. The National Center provides high-quality universal and 
targeted capacity-building services to address: high-leverage problems 
identified in Regional Center service plans; common findings from 
finalized Department monitoring reports or audit findings; 
implementation challenges faced by States and Regional Centers; and 
emerging national education trends. Prior Comprehensive Centers 
competitions also funded national Content Centers, which provide 
focused services in areas of high national need. An additional Content 
Center, funded in response to 2016 appropriations language and a new 
authority in the ESEA, focuses on students at risk of not attaining 
full literacy skills due to a disability.
    Through the proposed priorities in this document, the Department 
intends to maximize the ability of the Comprehensive Centers to be 
flexible and responsive to specific State and local client needs while 
also providing leadership and focused support on issues of national 
importance to support education systems through a time of continued 
challenge and transition. This approach aligns with ``Raise the Bar: 
Lead the World'' \1\--the Department's recent call to action to all 
stakeholders to transform pre-kindergarten through postsecondary 
education and unite around evidence-based strategies that advance 
educational equity and excellence for all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.ed.gov/raisethebar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department believes that the best way to support State and 
local efforts in achieving academic recovery and excellence through the 
Comprehensive Centers Program, consistent with the requirements of both 
the ESEA and the ETAA, is by supporting the capacity of State and local 
educational systems to improve core instruction, enable conditions to 
accelerate learning and deliver a comprehensive and rigorous education 
for every student, attend to the social, emotional, and mental 
wellbeing of school communities, eliminate the educator shortage, 
provide pathways to multilingualism, and meet the unique needs of all 
students. The Comprehensive Centers Program is also a critical support 
to SEAs, LEAs, and schools working to implement evidence-based 
practices to help accelerate academic recovery in math and literacy, 
while also promoting equity in student access to educational resources 
and opportunities to improve student outcomes and close opportunity 
gaps.
    Additionally, and as noted throughout this document, the Department 
is interested in supporting the implementation of evidence-based 
approaches to addressing important educational challenges. As an 
important complement to the research and evaluation and research-
related technical assistance function provided by the RELs, under the 
proposed priorities, Comprehensive Centers would focus capacity-
building services on selecting, implementing, and sustaining evidence-
based programs, policies, practices, and interventions. In doing this 
work, Centers must consider clients' capacity to select and implement 
evidence-based approaches, particularly for practice areas or 
populations where available evidence may be limited; help clients with 
implementation of evidence-based interventions that will help learners 
accelerate their learning and achievement; and document and disseminate 
information about their results. More information about using and 
building evidence is available in the Department's Non-Regulatory 
Guidance: Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments, which can 
be found at https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/discretionary/2023-non-regulatory-guidance-evidence.pdf.
    To support capacity-building that is customer-focused, results-
driven, and most likely to help recipients sustain positive impact on 
students, we believe the Centers must focus services on helping 
recipients to (1) identify root causes of, and select the most 
appropriate and effective evidence-based solutions to address, high-
leverage educational problems, (2) create sustainable organizational 
structures and performance management systems that help recipients set 
priorities for using their resources to achieve desired results, (3) 
increase their ability to use those structures and systems to ensure 
that LEAs and schools are provided high-quality services and supports, 
(4) support the implementation and scaling of evidence-based strategies 
in LEAs and schools, (5) identify and implement a continuum of supports 
and interventions to address the specific and varying needs of LEAs and 
schools, (6) support the sustainability of State- and local-led 
approaches, and (7) contact and engage with entities that have not 
asked for targeted support but may be in need of it based on available 
data.
    We believe three tiers of services can be offered: (1) universal, 
(2) targeted, and (3) intensive. Within the proposed priorities for the 
Comprehensive Centers, Regional Centers would specialize in providing 
intensive supports, whereas National and Content Center(s) would 
primarily provide targeted and universal services.
    Consistent with the RAC findings and recommendations and the 
requirements in the ESEA and ETAA, the proposed priorities address 
service delivery in all tiers related to the teaching and learning of 
all children, including those with disabilities and who are English 
Learners and multilingual; supporting school improvement activities; 
maximizing flexibility and responsiveness; and enabling more coherent, 
coordinated, and efficient service delivery to all States, while 
minimizing duplication of services across 14 Regional Centers, 4 
Content Centers, and one National Center. Under the proposed 
priorities, Regional Centers and the National Center would address 
critical needs related to teaching and learning, while remaining 
flexible to address emerging needs, enhancing the ability of the 
Department to provide focused services in areas of high national need 
through the Content Centers. Such delineation would support a balance 
of responsiveness and coherent, coordinated, and efficient service 
delivery across Comprehensive Centers.

National, Content, and Regional Comprehensive Centers

    Under the proposed priorities, the Comprehensive Centers would 
operate as a network comprised of National and Content Centers that 
identify and provide scalable solutions at the national level that can 
be replicated in States, and Regional Centers that serve as the entry 
point to the network and focus on providing individualized, intensive, 
and responsive support to meet the specific needs of States and systems 
within their regions.
    First, under the proposed priorities, the National Center would 
address

[[Page 4231]]

educational issues related to instruction, learning, and improvement at 
a national level. Every State and LEA has a set of policies, programs, 
and systems that relate to each of these areas. The multitude of State 
and local needs and priorities identified by the RACs associated with 
aligning instruction, assessment, accountability, school improvement, 
school climate and environment, and addressing opportunity gaps are 
interconnected. The Department believes that one National Center can 
most effectively support these interconnected needs using an integrated 
technical assistance approach that models and supports alignment within 
the agencies it serves.
    The National Center would also support the implementation and 
scale-up of evidence-based practices across the Nation. For example, 
the National Center might begin by convening practitioners and 
education system leaders who were successfully addressing a common need 
using one or more evidence-based practices to elicit practitioner and 
leader feedback about their perceived barriers and success factors in 
implementing those practices. Using that feedback, the National Center 
could then develop and disseminate resources and tools that supported 
broader implementation of the practices, getting buy-in from 
stakeholders and supporting LEAs in change management and professional 
development. The National Center would disseminate these effective 
universal capacity-building resources and tools nationally and through 
the Regional Centers and other Federal technical assistance providers 
(federally funded providers), to provide targeted opportunities for SEA 
and LEA peers to work together to apply and implement them.
    Additionally, the National Center would serve as the core of the 
Comprehensive Center Network (CCNetwork), which would enable it to 
identify common implementation challenges and emerging national 
education issues facing States across regions and content areas and to 
coordinate support among Regional and Content Centers. In this role, 
the National Center's activities could include facilitating peer 
learning among Centers and their clients, and identifying best 
practices in providing and scaling effective capacity-building services 
that will enhance the effectiveness of services provided across the 
network. The National Center would also most effectively cooperate with 
other federally funded providers to identify gaps in services where the 
National Center may provide needed support and avoid duplication of 
services across Federal investments. Finally, the National Center would 
most effectively disseminate resources from the CCNetwork to potential 
recipients.
    To effectively serve in this role, under the proposed requirements 
and selection criteria, the National Center must have expertise in 
implementation science, adult learning, and developing effective 
training materials for adults, to enable it to design effective 
universal capacity-building tools to assist Regional Centers in taking 
effective practices to scale within their States.
    Under the proposed priorities, the National Center would provide 
services to SEAs, LEAs, REAs, TEAs, and other recipients, in addition 
to Regional and Content Centers, to address identified national needs. 
Accordingly, under the proposed requirements, Regional Centers must be 
poised to share timely information from a variety of regional 
stakeholders about their capacity needs with the National Center and 
must reserve a portion of their time to support their States in 
participating in targeted capacity-building services facilitated 
through National or Content Centers and implementing the tools and 
resources the National and Content Centers produce.
    Under the proposed priorities, Regional Centers would serve as the 
entry point for States to the CCNetwork and support States in 
navigating available support from the CCNetwork and other federally 
funded providers. The Department acknowledges the importance of 
aligning Federal supports to State and local needs within each 
identified region; therefore, we propose closely aligning these centers 
to the existing REL regions, while also enhancing support for States 
and recipients with higher needs or special initiatives being 
undertaken by State, intermediate, or local educational agencies, or 
BIE-funded schools, as appropriate, which may require special 
assistance from the Regional Center.
    In turn, under the proposed priorities, the Content Centers funded 
under this program would work to increase the depth of knowledge and 
expertise available to Regional Centers, SEAs, and LEAs in key areas of 
high national importance and need. Content Centers would complement the 
work of the Regional Centers by providing targeted, universal, and, 
where appropriate, intensive capacity-building services, including 
information, publications, tools, and specialized technical assistance 
based on evidence-based practices, in their specific content area. The 
Content Centers would also play a key role in improving efficiency in 
developing and disseminating technical assistance by, for example, 
avoiding the duplication and higher costs of parallel efforts by two or 
three Regional Centers. Content Centers must have national subject 
matter expertise and practitioner experience to ensure both the ability 
to draw on the latest research and evidence related to the area of 
need, as well as to provide high-quality assistance that draws from the 
experience of professionals who have successfully led State and local 
agencies and provided successful high-quality capacity-building 
services.
    To meet specific areas of need, including topics identified by the 
RACs and through monitoring of ESEA programs that are not otherwise 
served by the National Center or other Department investments, the 
Assistant Secretary proposes funding priorities for four Content 
Centers: (1) the Center on English Learners and Multilingualism, (2) 
the Center for Early School Success, (3) the Center on Fiscal Equity, 
and (4) the Center on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator 
Workforce.
    The Department also acknowledges that some important priorities 
identified through Tribal consultation and by the RACs are already 
being addressed through other significant Federal investments in 
technical assistance. Such investments include substantial support 
provided through technical assistance centers funded under Title IV, 
Part A of the ESEA and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) for 
promoting student well-being and mental health, establishing safe and 
supportive school communities, and addressing school climate and 
chronic absenteeism; investments in family engagement through the 
Statewide Family Engagement Centers; and significant support provided 
through centers funded under IDEA technical assistance and 
dissemination programs for children with disabilities. Where services 
are already being provided, the Department encourages Comprehensive 
Centers to refer to or partner with those federally funded providers, 
and to focus Comprehensive Center services on meeting gaps in 
identified needs that are not yet being addressed through other Federal 
investments.
    Proposed Priority 1--National Comprehensive Center.
    Projects that propose to establish a National Center to (1) provide 
high-quality, high-impact technical assistance and capacity-building 
services to the Nation that are designed to improve educational 
opportunities and educator and student outcomes and (2) coordinate the 
work of the CCNetwork to effectively use program

[[Page 4232]]

resources to support evidence use and the implementation of evidence-
based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices to close opportunity gaps 
and improve educational outcomes, particularly accelerating academic 
achievement in math and literacy for all students, and particularly for 
groups of students with the greatest need, including students from low-
income families and students attending schools implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted or additional 
targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of 
the ESEA, in a manner that reaches and supports as many SEAs, REAs, 
TEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of services as possible.
    The National Center must design and implement an effective approach 
to providing high-quality, useful, and relevant universal, targeted, 
and, as appropriate and in partnership with Regional Centers, intensive 
capacity-building services that are likely to achieve desired recipient 
outcomes. The approach must be driven by adult learning strategies and 
incorporate implementation, improvement, and systems change frameworks. 
The approach must promote alignment across interconnected areas of 
need, programs, and agency systems.
    The National Center must implement effective strategies for 
coordinating with the Regional Centers and Content Centers to assess 
educational needs; coordinate common areas of support across Centers; 
share and disseminate information about CCNetwork services, tools, and 
resources to maximize the reach of the CCNetwork across clients and 
education stakeholders; coordinate with other federally funded 
providers regarding the work of the CCNetwork and support navigation of 
available support for clients; and support the selection, 
implementation, scale-up, and dissemination of evidence-based practices 
that will improve educational outcomes, particularly academic 
achievement in math and literacy, and close opportunity gaps for all 
students, particularly for groups of students with the greatest need, 
including students from low-income families and students attending 
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement or targeted 
or additional targeted support and improvement activities under section 
1111(d) of the ESEA.
    Services must address: common high-leverage problems identified in 
Regional Center service plans (as outlined in the Program Requirements 
for the National Center); findings from finalized Department monitoring 
reports or audit findings; implementation challenges faced by States 
and LEAs related to teaching, learning, and development; needs of 
schools designated for improvement; needs related to closing 
achievement and opportunity gaps; needs to improve core instruction; 
and emerging education topics of national importance.
    The National Center must provide universal and targeted capacity-
building services that demonstrably assist SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and 
Regional Center clients and recipients to--
    (1) Implement approved ESEA Consolidated State Plans, with 
preference given to implementing and scaling evidence-based programs, 
practices, and interventions that directly benefit entities that have 
high percentages or numbers of students from low-income families as 
referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5));
    (2) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that lead to the increased capacity of SEAs and LEAs to 
address the unique educational challenges and improve outcomes of 
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities 
or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement activities 
as referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)) and 
their students;
    (3) Implement State accountability and assessment systems 
consistent with Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA section 1111(b)-(d));
    (4) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that improve instruction and outcomes in core subjects, 
including math and literacy instruction;
    (5) Address the unique educational obstacles faced by rural and 
Tribal students; and
    (6) Implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that address other emerging education topics of national 
importance that are not being met by another federally funded provider 
(e.g., best practices in the use of education technology).
    An applicant under this priority must demonstrate how it will 
cultivate a network of national subject matter experts from a diverse 
set of perspectives or organizations to provide capacity-building 
support to Regional Centers and clients regarding the ESEA topical 
areas listed above and other emerging education issues of national 
importance.
    Proposed Priority 2--Regional Centers.
    Projects that propose to establish Regional Centers to provide 
high-quality, intensive capacity-building services to State and local 
clients and recipients to assist them in selecting, implementing, and 
sustaining evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that 
will result in improved educator practice and student outcomes, 
especially in math and literacy.
    Each Regional Center must provide high-quality, useful, and 
relevant capacity-building services that demonstrably assist clients 
and recipients in--
    (1) Carrying out Consolidated State Plans approved under the ESEA, 
with preference given to the implementation and scaling up of evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions that directly benefit 
recipients that have high percentages or numbers of students from low-
income families as referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 
1113(a)(5)) and recipients that are implementing comprehensive support 
and improvement activities or targeted or additional targeted support 
and improvement activities as referenced in Title I, Part A of the ESEA 
(ESEA sec. 1111(d));
    (2) Implementing, scaling up, and sustaining evidence-based 
programs, practices, or interventions that focus on key initiatives 
that lead to LEAs and schools improving student outcomes. Key 
initiatives may include implementing evidence-based practices to help 
accelerate academic recovery in math and literacy (include, high-impact 
tutoring, high-quality summer and after-school programming, and 
effective interventions to reduce chronic absenteeism), improving core 
instruction, implementing innovative approaches to assessment, 
responding to educator shortages, or developing aligned and integrated 
agency systems;
    (3) Addressing the unique educational obstacles faced by 
underserved populations, including students from low-income families, 
students of color, students living in rural areas, Tribal students, 
English learners, students in foster care, migratory children, 
immigrant children and youth, and other student populations with 
specific needs defined in the ESEA; and
    (4) Improving implementation of ESEA programs by addressing 
corrective actions or results from audit findings and ESEA program 
monitoring, conducted by the Department, that are programmatic in 
nature, at the request of the client.
    Regional Centers must effectively work with the National Center and 
Content Centers, as needed, to assist

[[Page 4233]]

clients in selecting, implementing, and sustaining evidence-based 
programs, policies, practices, and interventions; and must develop 
cost-effective strategies to make their services available to as many 
SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and schools within the region in need of 
support as possible.
    Applicants must propose to operate a Regional Center in one of the 
following regions:

Region 1 (Northeast): Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, 
New York, Rhode Island, Vermont
Region 2 (Islands): Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic): Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania
Region 4 (Appalachia): Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 5 (Southeast): Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Region 6 (Gulf): Alabama, Florida, Mississippi
Region 7 (Midwest): Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin
Region 8 (Central): Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Wyoming
Region 9 (Southwest): Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Region 10 (West): Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah
Region 11 (Northwest): Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana
Region 12 (Pacific 1): American Samoa, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall 
Islands
Region 13 (Pacific 2): Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau
Region 14: Bureau of Indian Education

    Proposed Priority 3--Content Centers.
    Projects that propose to establish Content Centers to provide 
targeted and universal capacity-building services in a designated 
content area of expertise to SEA, REA, TEA, and LEA clients designed to 
improve educational opportunities, educator practice, and student 
outcomes.
    Content Centers must be designed to build the capacity of 
practitioners, education system leaders, public schools serving 
preschool through 12th grades (P-12) (which may include Head Start and 
community-based preschool), LEAs, and SEAs to use evidence in the 
designated content area. Capacity-building services may include, for 
example, developing evidence-based products and tools, and providing 
services that directly inform the use of evidence in a State or local 
policy or program or improved program implementation to achieve desired 
educational outcomes. Services must promote the use of the latest 
evidence, including research and data; be effectively delivered using 
best practices in technical assistance and training; and demonstrate a 
rationale for how they will result in improved recipient outcomes.
    Content Centers must support Regional Centers, as needed, with 
subject matter expertise to enhance the intensive capacity-building 
services provided by the Regional Centers or to design universal or 
targeted capacity-building services to meet identified SEA, REA, TEA, 
or LEA needs.
    Content Centers must effectively coordinate and align targeted 
capacity-building services with the National Center, Regional Centers, 
and other federally funded providers, as appropriate, to address high-
leverage problems and provide access to urgently needed services to 
build Centers' capacity to support SEAs and local clients. Content 
Centers must effectively coordinate with the National Center, Regional 
Centers, and other federally funded providers to assess potential 
client needs, avoid duplication of services, and widely disseminate 
products or tools to practitioners, education system leaders, and 
policymakers in formats that are high quality, easily accessible, 
understandable, and actionable to ensure use of services by as many 
SEA, REA, TEA, and LEA recipients as possible.
    Applicants must propose to operate a Content Center in one of the 
following areas:
    (1) English Learners and Multilingualism. The Center on English 
Learners and Multilingualism must provide universal, targeted, and, as 
appropriate and in partnership with Regional Centers, intensive 
capacity-building services designed to support SEAs and LEAs to meet 
the needs of English learners, including the needs of English learners 
with disabilities, and increase access to high-quality language 
programs so that they, along with all students, have the opportunity to 
become multilingual. The Center must also support the selection, 
implementation, and scale-up of evidence-based practices, in 
coordination with the National Clearinghouse for English Language 
Acquisition, related to meeting the needs of English learners.
    (2) Early School Success: The Center for Early School Success must 
provide universal, targeted, and, as appropriate and in partnership 
with Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to 
support SEAs and LEAs to implement comprehensive and aligned preschool 
to third-grade (P-3) early learning systems in order to increase the 
number of children who experience success in early learning and 
achievement, including developmentally informed and evidence-based 
instructional practices in social emotional development, early 
literacy, and math. The Center must support the selection, 
implementation, and scale-up of programs, policies, and practices, 
informed by research on child development, that can strengthen P-3 
learning experiences and support social, emotional, cognitive, and 
physical development.
    (3) Fiscal Equity: The Center on Fiscal Equity must provide 
universal, targeted, and, as appropriate and in partnership with 
Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to 
support SEAs and LEAs in strengthening equitable and adequate school 
funding strategies, including the allocation of State and local 
funding; improving the quality and transparency of fiscal data at the 
school level; and prioritizing supports for students and communities 
with the greatest need. The Center must support the selection, 
implementation, and scale-up of evidence-based programs, policies, and 
practices that promote responsible fiscal planning and management and 
effective and permissible uses of ESEA formula funds, including through 
combining those funds with other available and allowable Federal, 
State, and local funds (``blending and braiding'') and considering how 
ESEA funds may interact with and complement other Federal programs, 
such as IDEA, Medicaid, and Head Start to improve student opportunities 
and outcomes.
    (4) Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce: The Center 
on Strengthening and Supporting the Educator Workforce must provide 
universal, targeted, and, as appropriate and in partnership with 
Regional Centers, intensive capacity-building services designed to 
support SEAs to support their LEAs and schools in designing and scaling 
practices that establish and enhance high-quality, comprehensive, 
evidence-based, and affordable educator pathways, including educator 
residency and Grow Your Own programs, as well as emerging pathways into 
the profession such as registered apprenticeship programs for teachers 
and that improve educator diversity, recruitment, and retention. The 
Center must support the selection, implementation, and scale-up of

[[Page 4234]]

evidence-based programs, policies, and practices that are likely to 
support States and LEAs in addressing educator shortages and providing 
all students with highly qualified educators across the P-12 continuum, 
including through increased compensation and improved working 
conditions; high-quality, comprehensive, evidence-based, and affordable 
educator preparation, including educator residency and Grow Your Own 
programs, as well as emerging pathways into the profession such as 
registered apprenticeship programs for teachers; providing 
opportunities for teacher leadership and career advancement; ongoing 
professional learning throughout educators' careers, including 
implementing evidence-based strategies for effective teaching and 
learning; strengthening new teacher induction; and supporting and 
diversifying the educator workforce, as well as other actions to 
improve learning conditions and educator well-being.
    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)).

Proposed Requirements

Background

    The Department proposes program and application requirements to 
support effective administration of Comprehensive Center services.
    The proposed application requirements are designed to complement 
the proposed program requirements. Under the proposed program 
requirements, Centers would be required to model best practices in 
implementation design and performance management. Under the proposed 
application requirements, applicants must demonstrate how they will 
model best practices, including by describing strategies to identify 
the root causes driving high-leverage problems, select the evidence-
based practices that most effectively address those causes, and 
implement effective practices in implementation design and performance 
management to achieve desired outcomes.
    In meeting the proposed program requirement for annual service 
plans, proposed capacity-building services must be in service of 
outcomes that (a) are co-designed with clients; (b) address authentic 
needs based on needs-sensing activities; (c) are clear and measurable; 
and (d) have associated achievable, specific targets. Long-term goals 
should serve as a ``north star'' for the work of the Centers and should 
be in service of their clients' goals. This requires highly inclusive 
needs sensing processes that include relevant stakeholders and 
recipients in the process of defining the needs to be addressed, and 
disciplined processes by which Centers help clients to define the 
specific outcomes they aim to achieve that will result in improved 
educational outcomes.
    In addition, the proposed requirements for stakeholder engagement 
would ensure that meaningful efforts are made to engage with, and 
incorporate the views of, a broad range of potential clients, including 
those who did not initially request support but may benefit from it 
based on available data. These stakeholder engagement requirements 
would be reinforced through the proposed communication and 
dissemination requirements, which would require Centers to ensure 
services are broadly disseminated to reach as many potential clients as 
possible. Finally, the proposed program requirements for performance 
management would require Centers to quantify and collect data on the 
use, reach, and impact of Center services in alignment with the 
performance measures for this program.
    Effective service delivery requires highly qualified personnel who 
bring both subject matter content and technical expertise. Under the 
proposed program requirements, subject matter experts must include 
professionals with significant and demonstrated scholarly expertise in 
content areas and approaches relevant to the work the Center undertakes 
as well as practitioners who have significant--and, ideally, recent--
experience directly leading State or local educational systems. Under 
the proposed application requirements, applicants must describe how 
highly qualified personnel will combine subject matter expertise with 
strong demonstrated expertise providing effective technical assistance 
through teaching and leading professional development in those content 
areas.
    Additionally, successfully managing a Center, developing deep 
customer-focused relationships with States, and managing complex 
projects with varied stakeholders requires significant investment of 
personnel time and leadership. Under the proposed program requirements, 
Centers must strive to achieve as close to full-time equivalency (FTE) 
as practicable for all personnel in key leadership and service-delivery 
roles, and at least .75 FTE for the Program Director, to help ensure 
that sufficient leadership and expertise are available to support 
effective management and service provision. Additionally, the proposed 
program requirements for the National Center require at least 1 FTE 
Project Director, or co-Directors each with at least .75 FTE, to ensure 
sufficient leadership capacity for the project.
    While Centers assist clients in selecting evidence-based practices, 
they additionally help them develop and implement practices that may 
become models to others. To expand the reach of the Centers, each 
Center must effectively curate and disseminate effective practices. 
Under the proposed program requirement for communications and 
dissemination plans, Centers must intentionally plan for how 
information will be used and by whom, and what strategies most 
effectively engage their target audiences to expand the reach and 
potential impact of their services, tools, and products. And under the 
proposed program requirement for performance management systems, 
Centers must measure and report on the effectiveness of these 
strategies, including the reach of their services, to monitor and 
improve the efficacy of their communication and dissemination 
strategies.
    In providing services within the CCNetwork, and in alignment with 
other providers who are servicing the same clients, Centers must 
approach collaboration intentionally to reduce client burden in 
interacting with multiple providers, and to ensure that Federal 
resources are being used most efficiently and effectively to meet a 
variety of needs across federally funded providers. While each Center 
may have a specific recipient type or area of

[[Page 4235]]

expertise, all work in service of the same goals. To avoid duplication 
wherever possible, under the program requirements for annual service 
plans and partnership agreements, Centers must coordinate common 
activities, such as needs sensing with State agency leadership, with 
other federally funded providers serving their intended clients, to the 
extent practicable, and must establish processes to identify which 
Centers may be best suited to meet expressed and identified needs.
    Under the proposed program requirements relating to CCNetwork peer 
learning, Centers must share with other regions knowledge of effective 
practices and approaches to capacity-building used with their clients. 
We believe that Centers will benefit by learning from each other and 
that this requirement would promote the achievement of each Center's 
intended outcomes, as well as enhance the overall impact of the 
CCNetwork.
    The Department recognizes that we cannot anticipate every need a 
State may have, and that critical needs could emerge throughout the 
grant period that will require Centers to rapidly respond to meet new 
demands. For that reason, the Department proposes to require each 
Center to reserve funds annually to address emerging needs.
    Proposed Program Requirements:
    The Assistant Secretary proposes the following program requirements 
for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any 
year in which this program is in effect.
    Program Requirements for All Centers: National, Regional, and 
Content Center grantees under this program must:
    (1) Develop service plans annually for carrying out the technical 
assistance and capacity-building activities to be delivered by the 
Center in response to educational challenges facing students, 
practitioners, and education system leaders. Plans must include: High-
leverage problems to be addressed, including identified client needs, 
capacity-building services to be delivered, time-based outcomes (i.e., 
short-term, mid-term, long-term), responsible personnel, key technical 
assistance partners, milestones, outputs, dissemination plans, fidelity 
measures, if appropriate, and any other elements specified by the 
Department. The annual service plans must be an update to the Center's 
five-year plan submitted as part of the initial grant application and 
account for changes in client needs.
    (2) Develop and implement capacity-building services, including 
tools and resources, in partnership with State and local clients and 
recipients to reflect and address specific client needs and contexts 
and promote sustainable evidence utilization to address identified 
educational challenges.
    (3) Develop and implement an effective performance management 
system that integrates continuous improvement to promote effective 
achievement of client outcomes. The system must include methods to 
measure and monitor progress towards agreed upon outcomes, outputs, and 
milestones and to measure the reach, use, and impact of the services 
being delivered to ensure capacity-building services are implemented as 
intended, reaching intended clients and recipients, and achieving 
desired results. Progress monitoring must include periodic assessment 
of client satisfaction and timely identification of changes in State 
contexts that may impact the project's success. The performance 
management system must include strategies to report on defined program 
performance measures.
    (4) Develop and implement a stakeholder engagement system to 
regularly communicate, engage, and coordinate, using feedback to inform 
improvement, across organizational levels (Federal, State, and local), 
and facilitate regular engagement of stakeholders involved in or 
affected by proposed services. This system must provide regular and 
ongoing opportunities for outreach activities (e.g., regular promotion 
of services and products to potential and current recipients, 
particularly at the local level) and regular opportunities for 
engagement with potential beneficiaries or participants involved in or 
impacted by proposed school improvement activities (e.g., students, 
parents, educators, administrators, Tribal leaders) to ensure services 
reflect their needs.
    (5) Develop and implement a high-quality personnel management 
system to efficiently obtain and retain the services of nationally 
recognized technical and content experts and other consultants with 
direct experience working with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs. The Center must 
ensure that personnel have the appropriate expertise to deliver high-
quality capacity-building services that meet client and recipient need 
and be staffed at a level sufficient for achieving the goals of its 
assigned projects and responsibilities.
    (6) Develop and implement a comprehensive communication and 
dissemination plan that includes strategies to disseminate information 
in multiple formats and media (e.g., evidence-based practice tool kits, 
briefs, informational webinars) including through CCNetwork websites, 
social media, and other methods as appropriate, and strategies to 
monitor the use of the information it disseminates. The plan must 
include approaches to determine, at the outset of each project, in 
consultation with clients, the most effective modality and methodology 
for capturing evidence-based practices and lessons learned, 
dissemination strategies customized and based on needs of the targeted 
audience(s), and strategies to monitor and measure audience engagement 
and use of information and products of the Center. Centers must work 
with partners to disseminate products through networks in which the 
targeted audiences are most likely to seek or receive information with 
the goal of expanding the reach of Centers to the largest number of 
recipients possible.
    (7) Identify and enter into partnership agreements with federally 
funded providers, State and national organizations, businesses, and 
industry experts, as applicable, to support States in the 
implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based programs, practices, 
and interventions, as well as reduce duplication of services and 
engagement burden to States. Where appropriate, the agreements should 
document how the partnerships might advance along a continuum to 
effectively meet program and client goals.
    (8) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, demonstrate 
to the Department that it has secured client and partner commitments to 
carry out proposed annual service plans.
    (9) Participate in a national evaluation of the Comprehensive 
Centers Program.
    Program Requirements for National Comprehensive Center: In addition 
to the requirements for all Centers, National Center grantees under 
this program must:
    (1) Design and implement robust needs sensing activities and 
processes to consult with and integrate feedback from the Department, 
Regional and Content Centers, and advisory boards that surface high-
leverage problems that could be effectively addressed in developing the 
national annual service plan.
    (2) Collaborate with Regional and Content Centers to implement 
universal and targeted services for recipients to address high-leverage 
problems identified in the annual service plan. In providing targeted 
services (e.g., multi-State and cross-regional peer-to-peer exchanges 
or communities of practice on problems), the National Center must 
provide opportunities for recipients to learn from their peers and 
subject matter experts and apply evidence-based

[[Page 4236]]

practices and must define tangible, achievable capacity-building 
outcomes for recipient participation. Universal services must be 
grounded in evidence-based practices, be produced in a manner that 
recipients are most likely to use, be shared via multiple mechanisms 
such as the CCNetwork website, social media, and other channels as 
appropriate, and be appropriate for a variety of education 
stakeholders, including the general public.
    (3) Develop and implement a strategy to recruit and retain a 
comprehensive cadre of national subject matter experts that includes 
qualified education practitioners, researchers, policy professionals, 
and other consultants with (1) direct experience working in or with 
SEAs, REAs, and LEAs and (2) in-depth expertise in specific subject 
areas with an understanding of State contexts available to support 
universal and targeted services of the National Center and intensive 
capacity-building services of Regional Centers. Cadre experts must have 
a proven record of designing and implementing effective capacity-
building services, using evidence effectively, and delivering quality 
adult learning experiences or professional development experiences that 
meet client and recipient needs and must have recognized subject matter 
expertise including publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presenting 
at national conferences on the ESEA programs or content areas for which 
they are engaged as experts to provide universal, targeted, or 
intensive capacity building.
    (4) Reserve not less than one half of the annual budget to provide 
universal, targeted, and, as needed, intensive services to address 
topics 1-5 enumerated in the priority for this Center and as approved 
by the Department in the annual service plan.
    (5) Include in the communications and dissemination plan, and 
implement, processes for outreach activities (e.g., regular promotion 
of services and products to clients and potential and current 
recipients), use of feedback loops across organizational levels 
(Federal, State, and local), regular engagement and coordination with 
the Department, Regional Centers, and partner organizations (e.g., 
federally funded providers), and engagement of stakeholders involved in 
or impacted by proposed school improvement activities.
    (6) Design and implement communications and dissemination vehicles 
for the CCNetwork, including maintaining the CCNetwork website with an 
easy-to-navigate design that meets government or industry recognized 
standards for accessibility, including compliance with Section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and maintain a consistent media 
presence, in collaboration with Regional and Content Centers and the 
Department Communications office, that promotes increased engagement.
    (7) Develop peer learning opportunities for Regional and Content 
Center staff (and other partners, as appropriate) to address 
implementation challenges and scale effective practices to improve 
service delivery across the CCNetwork.
    (8) Collect and share information about services provided through 
the CCNetwork for the purpose of coordination, collaboration, and 
communication across Centers and other providers, including an annual 
analysis of service plans to identify and disseminate information about 
services rendered across the CCNetwork.
    (9) Ensure that the Project Director is capable of managing all 
aspects of the Center and is either staffed at 1 FTE or there are two 
Co-Project Directors each at a minimum of 0.75 FTE. The Project 
Director or Co-Project Directors and all key personnel must be able to 
provide services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate 
to achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in 
annual service plans.
    (10) Reserve not less than one third of the budget to address the 
program requirements for CCNetwork coordination (requirements 5 through 
8).
    Program Requirements for Regional Centers: Regional Center grantees 
under this program must:
    (1) Actively coordinate and collaborate with the REL serving their 
region. Coordination must include annual joint need sensing in a manner 
designed to comprehensively inform service delivery across both 
programs while reducing burden on State agencies. The goals of this 
coordination and collaboration are to share, synthesize, and apply 
information, ideas, and lessons learned; to enable each type of 
provider to focus on its designated role; to ensure that work is non-
duplicative; to streamline and simplify service provision to States and 
LEAs; and to collaborate on projects to better support regional 
stakeholders.
    (2) Consult with a broad range of stakeholders, including chief 
State school officers and other SEA leaders, TEAs, LEAs, educators, 
students, and parents, and integrate their feedback in developing the 
annual service plan to reflect the needs of all States (and to the 
extent practicable, of LEAs) within the region to be served.
    (3) In developing the annual service plan, ensure services are 
provided to support students and communities with the highest needs, 
including recipients: (i) that have high percentages or numbers of 
students from low-income families as referenced in Title I, Part A of 
the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5)); (ii) that are implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted or 
additional targeted support and improvement activities as referenced in 
Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); (iii) in rural areas; 
and (iv) serving student populations with demonstrated needs unmet or 
under-met through other Federal, State, or local interventions.
    (4) Explore and provide opportunities to connect peers within and 
across regions.
    (5) Collaborate with the National Center and Content Centers, as 
appropriate, including to support client and recipient participation in 
targeted capacity-building services, and obtain and retain the services 
of nationally recognized content experts through partnership with the 
National Center, Content Centers, or other federally funded providers.
    (6) Support the participation of Regional Center staff in CCNetwork 
peer learning opportunities, including sharing information about 
effective practices in the region, to extend the Center's reach to as 
many SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools in need of services as possible 
while also learning about effective capacity-building approaches to 
enhance the Center's ability to provide high-quality services.
    (7) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, provide to 
the Department copies of partnership agreements with the REL(s) in the 
region that the Center serves and, as appropriate, other Department-
funded technical assistance providers that are charged with supporting 
comprehensive, systemic changes in States or Department-funded 
technical assistance providers with particular expertise (e.g., early 
learning or instruction for English language learners) relevant to the 
region's service plan. Partnership agreements must define processes for 
coordination and support collaboration to meet relevant program 
requirements.
    (8) Be located in the region the Center serves. The Project 
Director must be capable of managing all aspects of the Center and be 
either at a minimum of 0.75 FTE or there must be two Co-Project 
Directors each at a minimum of 0.5 FTE. The Project Director or Co-
Project Directors and key personnel must also be able to provide on-
site

[[Page 4237]]

services at the intensity, duration, and modality appropriate to 
achieving agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in 
annual service plans.
    Program Requirements for Content Centers: Content Center grantees 
under this program must:
    (1) Consult and integrate feedback from the National and Regional 
Centers in developing the annual service plan to inform high-quality 
tools, resources, and overall technical assistance in priority areas.
    (2) Collaborate with Regional Centers to address specific requests 
for assistance from States within the regions and strengthen Regional 
Center staff knowledge and expertise on the evidence base and effective 
practices within its specific content area.
    (3) Produce high-quality universal capacity-building services, and 
identify, organize, select, and translate existing key research 
knowledge and Department guidance related to the Center's content area 
and examples of workable strategies and systems for implementing 
provisions and programs that have produced positive outcomes for 
schools and students, and communicate the information in ways that are 
highly relevant and highly useful to State- and local-level policy 
makers and practitioners.
    (4) Collaborate with the National Center and Regional Centers to 
convene States and LEAs, researchers, and other experts, including 
other Federal entities and providers of technical assistance as 
identified by the Department, to learn from each other about practical 
strategies for implementing ESEA provisions and programs related to the 
Center's area of focus.
    (5) Support the participation of Content Center staff in CCNetwork 
peer learning opportunities with the goal of providing high-quality 
services while reaching as many SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools in need 
of services as possible.
    (6) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, provide 
copies to the Department of partnership agreements with Department-
funded technical assistance providers that are charged with supporting 
comprehensive, systemic changes in States or Department-funded 
technical assistance providers with particular expertise relevant to 
the Center's content area. Partnership agreements must define processes 
for coordination and support collaboration to meet relevant program 
requirements.
    Proposed Application Requirements:
    Application Requirements for All Centers:
    (1) Present a plan for operating the Comprehensive Center that 
clearly establishes the critical educational challenges proposed to be 
addressed by the Center, the impact the Center plans to achieve, 
including the proposed scope of services in relation to the number of 
SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and, as appropriate, schools served, with 
respect to specific State and local outcomes that would represent 
significant achievement in advancing the efforts of State and local 
systems to improve educational opportunities and student outcomes, and 
proposes how the Center will efficiently and effectively provide 
appropriate capacity-building services to achieve the desired outcomes.
    (2) Present applicable regional, State, and local educational 
needs, including relevant data demonstrating the identified needs, and 
including the perspectives of underrepresented groups, that could be 
addressed through capacity-building to implement and scale up evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions.
    (3) Demonstrate how key personnel possess expert knowledge of 
statutory requirements, regulations, and policies related to ESEA 
programs, current education issues, and policy initiatives for 
supporting the implementation and scaling up of evidence-based 
programs, practices, and interventions.
    (4) Demonstrate expertise in providing highly relevant and highly 
effective technical assistance (e.g., that is co-designed with clients; 
demonstrably addresses authentic needs based on needs-sensing 
activities; is timely, relevant, useful, clear and measurable; and 
results in demonstrable improvements or outcomes), including by 
demonstrating expertise in the current research on adult learning 
principles, coaching, and implementation science that will drive the 
applicant's capacity-building services; how the applicant has 
successfully supported clients to achieve desired outcomes; and how the 
applicant will promote self-sufficiency and sustainability of State- 
and local-led school improvement activities.
    (5) Present a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) informed by 
research or evaluation findings that demonstrates a rationale (as 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1) explaining how the project is likely to improve 
or achieve relevant and expected outcomes. The logic model must 
communicate how the proposed project would achieve its expected 
outcomes (short-term, mid-term, and long-term), and provide a framework 
for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project 
consistent with the applicant's performance management plan. Include a 
description of underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, 
and theories, as well as the relationships and linkages among these 
variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
    (6) Present a management plan that describes the applicant's 
proposed approach to managing the project to meet all program 
requirements related to needs assessment, stakeholder engagement, 
communications and dissemination, and personnel management.
    (7) Present a performance management plan that describes the 
applicant's proposed approach to meeting the program requirements 
related to performance management, including the applicant's proposed 
strategy to report on defined program performance measures, and 
describes the criteria for determining the extent to which: capacity-
building services proposed in annual service plans were implemented as 
intended; recipient outcomes were met (short-term, midterm, and long-
term); recipient capacity was developed; and services reached and were 
used by intended recipients.
    (8) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OESE 
program officer. With approval from the program officer, the project 
must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later 
than the end of the third quarter of each budget period.
    Application Requirements for the National Center: In addition to 
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a National Center 
applicant must:
    (1) Demonstrate expertise and experience in leading digital 
engagement strategies to attract and sustain the involvement of 
education stakeholders, including, but not limited to: implementing a 
robust web and social media presence and engagement, overseeing 
customer relations management, providing editorial support to Regional 
and Content Centers, and utilizing web analytics to improve content 
engagement.
    (2) Describe the proposed approach to providing targeted capacity-
building services, including how the applicant intends to collaborate 
with Regional Centers to identify potential recipients and estimate how 
many SEAs, REAs, TEAs, and LEAs it has the capacity to

[[Page 4238]]

reach; how it will measure the readiness and capacity of potential 
recipients; and how it will measure the extent to which targeted 
capacity-building services achieve intended recipient outcomes and 
result in increased recipient capacity (and specifically, increase 
capacity in one or more of the four dimensions of capacity-building).
    (3) Describe the proposed approach to universal capacity-building 
services, including how many and which recipients it plans to reach and 
how the applicant intends to: measure the extent to which products and 
services developed actually address common problems; support recipients 
in the selection, implementation, and monitoring of evidence-based 
practices; improve the use of evidence with regard to emerging national 
education trends; and build recipient capacity in at least one of the 
four dimensions of capacity-building.
    Application Requirements for Regional Centers:
    In addition to meeting the application requirements for all 
Centers, a Regional Center applicant must--
    (1) Describe the proposed approach to intensive capacity-building 
services, including identification of intended recipients based on 
available data in each of the content areas identified, alignment of 
proposed capacity-building services to client needs, and engagement of 
clients who may not initiate contact to request services. The applicant 
must also describe how it intends to measure the readiness of clients 
and recipients to work with the Center; co-design projects and define 
outcomes; measure and monitor client and recipient capacity across the 
four dimensions of capacity-building; and measure the outcomes achieved 
throughout and at the conclusion of a project.
    (2) Demonstrate that proposed key personnel have the appropriate 
expertise to deliver high-quality, intensive services that meet client 
and recipient needs similar to those in the region to be served.
    Application Requirements for Content Centers: In addition to 
meeting the application requirements for all Centers, a Content Center 
applicant must--
    (1) Describe the proposed approach to carry out targeted capacity-
building services that increase the use of evidence-based products or 
tools regarding the designated content area amongst practitioners, 
education system leaders, elementary schools and secondary schools, 
LEAs, and SEAs.
    (2) Describe the proposed approach to providing universal capacity-
building services, including how it will develop evidence-based 
products or tools regarding the designated content area; widely 
disseminate such products or tools to practitioners, education system 
leaders, and policymakers in formats that are high quality, easily 
accessible, understandable, and actionable; identify intended 
recipients; and align proposed capacity-building services to client 
needs.
    (3) Demonstrate that key personnel have appropriate subject matter 
and technical expertise to translate evidence into high-quality 
technical assistance services and products for State and local clients, 
including expertise applying adult-learning principles and 
implementation science to the delivery of technical assistance services 
and products.
    Proposed Definitions: The Assistant Secretary proposes the 
following definitions of ``client,'' ``collaboration,'' 
``coordination,'' ``English learner,'' ``key personnel,'' and 
``recipient,'' for use in this program in any year in which this 
program is in effect. We propose these definitions to aid applicants in 
understanding the intent and purpose of the priorities, requirements, 
and selection criteria.
    We also propose to replace certain terms established in the Notice 
of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance 
Measures published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2019 (84 FR 
13122) (2019 NFP). Specifically, although the 2019 NFP is not generally 
intended to be superseded by this proposed action, we are proposing new 
definitions for the terms ``high-leverage problem,'' ``outcomes,'' and 
``regional educational agency'' to better reflect how they are used in 
this document. Additionally, as established in the 2019 NFP, the term 
``capacity building services'' includes within it definitions for the 
``four dimensions of capacity-building services'' and the ``three tiers 
of capacity-building services.'' In this NPP, we propose to define 
these terms separately. Other than separating these terms, we have not 
proposed changes to the general term ``capacity building services'' or 
the ``four dimensions of capacity-building services'' as established in 
the 2019 NFP; however, to reflect how they apply to the proposed 
priorities in this document, we propose revised definitions for the 
three tiers of capacity-building services: ``intensive capacity-
building services,'' ``targeted capacity-building services,'' and 
``universal capacity-building services.''
    We also propose to use, in the proposed priorities, requirements, 
and selection criteria, the following terms, which are defined in the 
ESEA: ``immigrant children and youth,'' ``migratory child,'' and 
``tribal educational agency.''
    The proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria also 
incorporate the following terms established for use in this program by 
the 2019 NFP: ``capacity-building services,'' ``milestone,'' and 
``outputs.'' We have included the definitions of those terms in 
Appendix 1 to this document.
    Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an 
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous 
improvement and achieve expected outcomes.
    Client means the organization with which the Center enters into 
agreement for negotiated capacity-building services. The client is 
engaged in defining the high-leverage problems, capacity-building 
services, and time-based outcomes for each project noted in the 
Center's annual service plan. Representatives of clients include but 
are not limited to Chief State School Officers or their designees, LEA 
leaders, and other system leaders.
    Collaboration means exchanging information, altering activities, 
and sharing in the creation of ideas and resources to enhance the 
capacity of one another for mutual benefit to accomplish a common goal.
    Coordination means exchanging information, altering activities, and 
synchronizing efforts to make unique contributions to shared goals.
    English learner means an individual who is an English learner as 
defined in section 8101(20) of the ESEA, or an individual who is an 
English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act.
    Four dimensions of capacity-building services are:
    (1) Human capacity means development or improvement of individual 
knowledge, skills, technical expertise, and ability to adapt and be 
resilient to policy and leadership changes.
    (2) Organizational capacity means structures that support clear 
communication and a shared understanding of an organization's visions 
and goals, and delineated individual roles and responsibilities in 
functional areas.
    (3) Policy capacity means structures that support alignment, 
differentiation, or enactment of local, State, and Federal policies and 
initiatives.
    (4) Resource capacity means tangible materials and assets that 
support alignment and use of Federal, State, private, and local funds.

[[Page 4239]]

    High-leverage problems means problems that (1) if addressed could 
result in substantial improvements for groups of students with the 
greatest need, including for students from low-income families and for 
students attending schools implementing comprehensive support and 
improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement 
activities under ESEA section 1111(d)); (2) are priorities for 
education policymakers, particularly at the State level; and (3) 
require intensive capacity-building services to achieve outcomes that 
address the problem.
    Immigrant children and youth have the meaning ascribed in section 
3201(5) of the ESEA.
    Intensive capacity-building services means assistance often 
provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between 
the Comprehensive Center and its clients and recipients, as well as 
periodic reflection, continuous feedback, and use of evidence-based 
improvement strategies. This category of capacity-building services 
should support increased recipient capacity in more than one dimension 
of capacity-building services and result in medium-term and long-term 
outcomes at one or more system levels.
    Key personnel means any personnel considered to be essential to the 
work being performed on the project.
    Migratory child has the meaning ascribed it in section 1309(3) of 
the ESEA.
    Outcomes means demonstrable effects of receiving capacity-building 
services and must reflect the result of capacity built in at least one 
of the four dimensions of capacity building. ``Outcomes'' includes 
short-term outcomes, medium-term outcomes, and long-term outcomes:
    (1) Short-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 1 year.
    (2) Medium-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 2 to 3 years.
    (3) Long-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-building 
services after 4 or more years.
    Recipient means organizations including, but not limited to, SEAs, 
LEAs, REAs, TEAs, and schools that have received ``intensive'' and 
``targeted'' capacity-building services and products from Regional 
Centers, or that received ``targeted'' or ``universal'' capacity-
building services and products from the National Center or Content 
Centers.
    Regional educational agency means educational agencies that serve 
regional areas within a State.
    Targeted capacity-building services means assistance based on needs 
common to multiple clients and recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the recipient(s), 
the National Center or Content Center, and Regional Center(s), as 
appropriate. This category of capacity-building services includes one-
time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning 
or hosting national or regional conferences. It can also include 
services that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a 
series of conference calls, virtual or in-person meetings, or learning 
communities on single or multiple topics that are designed around the 
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also 
be considered targeted capacity-building services.
    Tribal educational agency has the meaning ascribed in section 
6132(b)(3) of the ESEA.
    Universal capacity-building services means assistance and 
information provided to independent users through their own initiative, 
involving minimal interaction with National or Content Center staff. 
This category of capacity-building services includes information or 
products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, policy briefs, or research 
syntheses, downloaded from the Center's website by independent users, 
and may include one-time, invited or offered webinar or conference 
presentations by National or Content Center staff. Brief communications 
or consultations by National or Content Center staff with recipients, 
either by telephone or email, are also considered universal services.

Proposed Selection Criteria

    The Assistant Secretary proposes the following selection criteria 
for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or 
more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. 
In the notice inviting applications we will announce the maximum 
possible points available under each criterion.
    Approach to Capacity Building. In determining the overall quality 
of the approach to capacity building of the proposed project, the 
Secretary may consider one or more of the following factors.
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project represents an 
exceptional approach to responding to the priority or priorities 
established for the competition that will likely result in building SEA 
capacity to implement State-level initiatives and support local- and 
school-level initiatives that improve educational outcomes, close 
achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction for all 
students.
    (2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates an exceptional 
approach to developing and delivering high-quality, useful, and 
relevant capacity-building services that--
    (a) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, would be 
expected to assist SEAs, REAs, TEAs, LEAs, and Regional Center clients 
and recipients, including those who do not proactively request 
assistance, to address the activities described in the priority;
    (b) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, would be 
expected to assist clients and recipients to address the activities 
described in the priority; and
    (c) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, would be 
expected to assist clients and recipients, including those who do not 
proactively request assistance, to address activities described in the 
priority related to the designated content area.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed technical assistance plan 
provides strategies that address the technical assistance needs of 
State and local educational systems in key areas of identified need, as 
evidenced by in-depth knowledge and understanding of--
    (a) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, 
implementation challenges faced by States; evidence-based practices 
related to teaching, learning, and development; needs of schools 
designated for improvement; needs to improve core instruction; and 
emerging education topics of national importance;
    (b) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the specific 
educational goals and priorities of the States to be served by the 
applicant, including emerging priorities based on State-led reform 
efforts, and the applicable State and regional demographics, policy 
contexts, and other factors and their relevance to improving student 
outcomes, closing opportunity and achievement gaps, and improving 
instruction; and
    (c) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, State 
technical assistance needs and evidence-based practices related to the 
Content Center priority for which the applicant is applying.
    (4) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent 
to which the capacity-building and management plans propose an 
exceptional approach

[[Page 4240]]

to meeting the requirements for the National Center.
    (5) In the case of an applicant for a Regional Center, the extent 
to which the applicant's capacity-building plan proposes an exceptional 
approach to meeting the requirements for all Regional Centers.
    (6) In the case of an applicant for a Content Center, the extent to 
which the applicant's capacity-building plan proposes an exceptional 
approach to meeting the requirements for all Content Centers.
    Quality of Project Design. In determining the quality of the 
project design of the proposed center for which the applicant is 
applying, the Assistant Secretary may consider one or more of the 
following factors.
    (1) The extent to which the proposed performance management system 
and processes demonstrate an exceptional approach to integrating 
continuous improvement processes and evaluation that will result in 
regular and ongoing improvement in the quality of the services provided 
and increase the likelihood that recipient outcomes are achieved.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed stakeholder and communication 
engagement system is likely to result in a high level of engagement 
with multiple potential beneficiaries or participants involved in or 
impacted by the proposed capacity-building activities to ensure that 
the proposed services reflect their needs, are delivered in a manner 
that is relevant and useful, and reach the largest number of recipients 
possible.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed personnel management system 
includes performance management processes for staff, subcontractors, 
and consultants that enable effective hiring, developing, supervising, 
and retaining a team of subject-matter and technical assistance experts 
and professional staff that will effectively meet the needs of the 
project.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed partnerships represent an 
intentional approach to collaboration that is likely to reduce client 
burden and to ensure that Federal resources are being used most 
efficiently and effectively to meet a variety of needs across federally 
funded providers.
    (5) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent 
to which the proposed project represents an exceptional management 
approach, including with respect to managing budgets; selecting, 
coordinating, and overseeing multiple consultant and subcontractor 
teams; managing communications and dissemination systems; and leading 
large-scale projects to coordinate with and deliver tools, training, 
and capacity-building services to governments, agencies, communities, 
schools, or other organizations.
    Subject Matter and Technical Assistance Expertise. In determining 
the subject-matter and technical expertise of key project personnel, 
the Assistant Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant 
encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of 
groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, 
color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the 
Assistant Secretary may consider one or more of the following factors.
    (1) The extent to which key project personnel demonstrate the 
required expertise and relevant knowledge, understanding, and 
experience in operating and administering State and local educational 
systems to effectively support recipients.
    (2) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated experience 
providing high-quality, timely, relevant, and useful technical 
assistance and capacity-building services to State and local 
educational systems.
    (3) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated the ability 
to develop ongoing partnerships with leading experts and organizations 
nationwide or regionally, as appropriate, that enhance its ability to 
provide high-quality technical assistance and subject-matter expertise.
    (4) In the case of an applicant for the National Center, the extent 
to which the applicant has demonstrated ability in operating a project 
of such scope.
    Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria: We will announce the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria in a document in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria after considering responses to this 
document and other information available to the Department. This 
document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, 
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting 
applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria, we invite applications through a 
notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more 
(as of 2023 but to be adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of 
OIRA for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set 
forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094).
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the

[[Page 4241]]

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 proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 
would 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 would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that this proposed regulatory action would 
not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation 
in our programs is voluntary, and whose costs can generally be covered 
with grant funds. As a result, the proposed regulatory action would not 
impose any particular burden, except when an entity voluntarily elects 
to apply for a grant. The proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria would help ensure that the grant 
program selects a high-quality applicant to implement activities that 
meet the goals of the program for each Center. We believe these 
benefits would outweigh any associated costs.

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Assistant Secretary invites comments on how to make the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the 
following:
    <bullet> Are the requirements in the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria clearly stated?
    <bullet> Do the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria contain technical terms or other wording that 
interferes with their clarity?
    <bullet> Could the description of the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of the preamble be more helpful in making the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
easier to understand? If so, how?
    <bullet> What else could we do to make the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria easier to understand?
    To send any comments on how the Department could make the proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria easier to 
understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
    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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Assistant Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory 
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size 
Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they 
are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field 
of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit 
institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently 
owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public 
institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by 
a government overseeing a population below 50,000.
    Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible 
entities, all are voluntary. Therefore, we do not believe that the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
would significantly impact small entities beyond the potential for 
increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, a 
competitive grant from the Department.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: These proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria contain information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1894-0006. The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria do not affect the currently approved data 
collection.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of the Department published in 
the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use 
PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Adam Schott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, Delegated the 
Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant 
Secretary Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Appendix I

    The proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria 
incorporate the following

[[Page 4242]]

terms established for use in this program by the 2019 NFP:
    Milestone means an activity that must be completed. Examples 
include: Identifying key district administrators responsible for 
professional development, sharing key observations from needs 
assessment with district administrators and identified stakeholders, 
preparing a logic model, planning for State-wide professional 
development, identifying subject matter experts, and conducting 
train-the-trainer sessions.
    Outputs means products and services that must be completed. 
Examples include: Needs assessment, logic model, training modules, 
evaluation plan, and 12 workshop presentations.
    Note: A product output under this program would be considered a 
deliverable under the open licensing regulations at 2 CFR 3474.20.

[FR Doc. 2024-01257 Filed 1-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


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