73426 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

1 Defined terms are used throughout this 

document and are indicated by capitalization. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OII–0146] 

RIN 1894–AA04 

Secretary’s Final Supplemental 

Priorities and Definitions for 

Discretionary Grant Programs 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities and definitions. 

SUMMARY: To support a comprehensive 

education agenda, the Secretary of 

Education establishes 15 priorities and 

related definitions for use in any 

appropriate discretionary grant program 

for fiscal year (FY) 2015 and future 

years. These priorities and definitions 

replace the supplemental priorities for 

discretionary grant programs that were 

published in 2010 and corrected in 

2011. These priorities reflect the lessons 

learned from implementing 

discretionary grant programs, as well as 

our current policy objectives and 

emerging needs in education. 

DATES: Effective Date: These 

supplemental priorities and definitions 

are effective January 9, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Moss, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W319, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 205–7726 or by email: 

allison.moss@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

The Secretary has outlined a 

comprehensive education agenda that 

includes support for early learning and 

development programs that prepare 

children to succeed in school; 

elementary and secondary education 

programs that prepare students to 

succeed in college, career, and life; and 

postsecondary programs that prepare 

students to be competitive in the 

workforce. These final priorities and 

definitions may be used across the 

Department of Education’s (the 

Department) discretionary grant 

programs to further the Department’s 

mission to promote Student 

Achievement 1 and global 

competitiveness. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: This regulatory 

action announces 15 supplemental 

priorities and relevant definitions. Each 

major provision is discussed in the 

Public Comment section of this 

document. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3, 

3474. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities and definitions (NPP) in the 

Federal Register on June 24, 2014 (79 

FR 35736). That document contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities 

and definitions. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, more than 1,600 

parties submitted comments on the 

proposed priorities and definitions. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and any 

changes in the priorities and definitions 

since publication of the notice of 

proposed priorities and definitions 

follows. 

General 

Comment: Over 1,000 commenters 

urged the Department to include in this 

notice of final priorities (NFP) a priority 

on a specific content area in education. 

Many of these commenters expressed 

support for a new priority focused on 

history and civic learning, but several 

commenters also wrote in support of the 

arts, foreign languages, geography, 

economics, and social studies. These 

commenters, in general, stated that it is 

inappropriate to include a priority that 

promotes science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

education without focusing on other 

educational areas such as history, civic 

learning, and social studies. One 

commenter suggested that if a new 

priority focused on such subjects was 

not possible, we amend all of the 15 

proposed priorities to require that 

applicants demonstrate knowledge of 

peoples, cultures, and histories within 

that applicant’s region. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concern that these 

priorities do not highlight content areas 

equally. While we do include Priority 7, 

which promotes STEM education and 

access to rigorous coursework in those 

subjects, but not priorities for other 

content areas, we clearly discuss our 

reasoning for focusing on STEM 

learning in the background section for 

Priority 7 in the NPP. 

Most of the priorities, as written, 

could be used to support any type of 

content area or classroom. For example, 

an applicant proposing a project 

designed to address Priority 2— 

Influencing the Development of NonCognitive Factors could do so using a 

strategy that includes creative arts 

expression. In addition, under Priority 

9—Improving Teacher Effectiveness and 

Promoting Equitable Access to Effective 

Teachers, projects that recruit, select, 

develop, support, and retain effective 

teachers could be designed with the 

specific needs of a history, social 

studies, foreign language, or civic 

education teacher in mind. As such, we 

do not think specific priorities in the 

recommended content areas are 

necessary. 

We appreciate the commenter’s 

suggestion that, if inclusion of a priority 

on history and civic learning is not 

possible, we change all of our priorities 

to ensure that applicants approach their 

proposed projects with the full context 

of the communities they propose to 

serve in mind. We agree that, to 

implement projects successfully, grant 

recipients should consider the history 

and characteristics of the communities 

they serve. However, applicants already 

have adequate incentives to demonstrate 

that they understand the community 

they intend to serve through their 

responses to the selection criteria used 

by the Department in its discretionary 

grant competitions to solicit information 

from applicants, such as how the 

proposed project would work, why the 

proposed project is necessary, and if the 

applicant has the necessary resources 

and experience to successfully 

implement the proposed project. In 

addition to program-specific selection 

criteria, general selection criteria are 

available in 34 CFR 75.210 for the 

Department to use, when appropriate, 

and the Department can develop 

selection criteria under 34 CFR 75.209 

for use in any discretionary grant 

program. Including such a focus in each 

priority is therefore unnecessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters asked 

that the Department include priorities 

on additional general topics. One 

commenter asked the Department to 

prioritize secondary and postsecondary 

transitions. Another commenter 

requested that we prioritize emerging 

fields of study that are important to 

national security and global 

competitiveness, such as computer 

science. A third commenter asked that 

we include a priority that would 

support school personnel who are not 

teachers or principals, but who are still 

critical to student success. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that transitions, national 

security and global competitiveness, 

and school support staff are important 

issues that merit attention. However, we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73427 

think that these topics are addressed in 

the final priorities. 

For example, we think that smooth 

transitions from secondary to 

postsecondary education could be part 

of a project under Priority 8, which 

focuses on implementation of 

internationally benchmarked collegeand career-ready standards and 

assessments. In addition, a program 

using subpart (c) of Priority 5— 

Improving Postsecondary Access, 

Affordability, and Completion would 

seek projects that are designed to 

increase the number and proportion of 

High-need Students who are prepared to 

enroll in and complete college, other 

postsecondary education, or other career 

and technical education, thus improving 

transitions to postsecondary education. 

These final priorities reflect a 

comprehensive education agenda that 

supports projects that improve student 

outcomes and prepare students for 

success in their careers and in life. 

Improving the education of the Nation’s 

students would have the ancillary effect 

of improved national security and global 

competitiveness. Further, we expect that 

use of Priority 7 to promote STEM 

education and improve Student 

Achievement in these areas will spur 

technological innovation, creation, and 

study across the Nation. The commenter 

references computer science as a 

particularly important field of study, 

and we note that computer science falls 

clearly within the scope of the STEM 

fields addressed in Priority 7. 

Finally, we agree with the commenter 

that school support staff, in addition to 

teachers and principals, can play 

integral roles in improving student 

academic outcomes. We think that 

projects that are designed to support 

such staff could be proposed under 

several priorities, including Priority 2— 

Influencing the Development of NonCognitive Factors, Priority 4— 

Supporting High-Need Students, Priority 

13—Improving School Climate, 

Behavioral Supports, and Correctional 

Education, and Priority 14—Improving 

Parent, Family, and Community 

Engagement 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

requested a separate priority focusing on 

partnerships, including school and 

community partnerships, and support 

for intermediaries. One commenter 

proposed adding a priority on utilizing 

the collective impact of such 

partnerships, including subparts on 

implementing a shared community 

vision, integrating professional expertise 

and data to make decisions, creating 

networks of cross-sector practitioners, 

and building civic infrastructure 

through committed resources. Another 

commenter recommended a priority that 

will support projects that leverage 

national service initiatives. 

Discussion: We agree that 

partnerships, whether they are school 

and community partnerships or 

partnerships with other intermediaries, 

provide opportunities to leverage 

resources to either increase a project’s 

effectiveness or its ability to reach more 

students. However, we do not agree 

with the recommendation of a priority 

that focuses solely on the establishment 

of such partnerships, and note that 

applicants could form partnerships to 

address any of the priorities proposed in 

the NPP. 

It is important to note that the 

Department may use factors from the 

general selection criteria in 34 CFR 

75.210 and criteria developed under 34 

CFR 75.209 to encourage the types of 

efforts described by the commenters. 

For example, 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality 

of the project design) includes factors 

that ask applicants to describe the 

extent to which the proposed project is 

supported by evidence and will 

integrate with, or build on, similar or 

related efforts, using existing funding 

streams from other programs or policies 

supported by community, State, and 

Federal resources. The Department has 

discretion in choosing whether to use 

the selection criteria and, if so, which 

selection criteria and factors are most 

appropriate for a given competition. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Several commenters 

provided suggestions to strengthen the 

background sections for each priority 

included in the NPP. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

feedback we received on the background 

sections included in the NPP, which 

explain our rationale for each proposed 

priority. We do not include background 

sections for priorities in the NFP. 

Therefore, we are not making any 

changes in response to these comments. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to use the priorities and 

selection criteria related to building 

evidence of effectiveness in the 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

combination with these priorities. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion and note that 

this combination is already possible. For 

a discretionary grant program, the 

Department already may use the 

evidence-related competitive preference 

priorities in 34 CFR 75.266 (What 

procedures does the Secretary use if the 

Secretary decides to give special 

consideration to applications supported 

by strong or moderate evidence of 

effectiveness?) or selection criteria in 34 

CFR 75.210 (General selection criteria) 

or developed under 34 CFR 75.209 so 

long as the priority or criteria are 

consistent with the program’s 

authorizing statute and purpose. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters were 

concerned that we are including too 

many priorities, and that it would be 

difficult to determine which of the 

priorities are most important. One 

commenter noted that it is confusing to 

include so many supplemental priorities 

in addition to the selection criteria and 

factors available in 34 CFR 75.210, and 

that so many emphases create unrest in 

the education field. Another commenter 

stated that all 15 priorities are not 

suitable for some discretionary grant 

programs, and may add unnecessary 

burden for applicants. In the same vein, 

another commenter strongly encouraged 

us to consider funding those programs 

using these priorities at levels 

appropriate for successful 

implementation of projects designed to 

address them. 

Some commenters also suggested 

strategies to better organize the 

priorities. For example, one commenter 

suggested we group the priorities into 

broader categories. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concerns and suggestions, 

and want to clarify the purpose of these 

supplemental priorities. These priorities 

are intended as options for the 

Department to use when announcing a 

discretionary grant program 

competition. For each grant program the 

Department may choose which, if any, 

of the priorities (or subparts) and 

definitions included in this NFP are 

appropriate for the competition with 

regard to feasibility and scope. The 

Department has the discretion to choose 

which priorities should be used in each 

competition, and how the priority 

would apply; for example, a priority 

may be used as an absolute priority, 

meaning that applicants that propose 

projects under that priority would need 

to address the priority to be eligible to 

receive funds. A priority could also be 

used as a competitive preference 

priority, meaning that applicants that 

propose projects addressing that priority 

could receive additional points for their 

applications, depending on how well 

they do so. Although we publish 15 

priorities in this NFP, we will use only 

those priorities that are relevant to and 

appropriate for the particular program. 

Furthermore, the Department is not 

required to use any of these priorities 

for any particular program. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73428 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

In addition, we think it is important 

to clarify how selection criteria are used 

in discretionary grant competitions as 

compared to absolute and competitive 

preference priorities. Selection criteria 

developed under 34 CFR 75.209 and 

general selection criteria from 34 CFR 

75.210 may be used to focus applicants 

on how they would meet statutory or 

regulatory requirements of a program, 

and encourage applicants to describe 

how well they are positioned to 

implement their proposed projects. For 

example, 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality of 

the project design) asks applicants to 

describe the project’s logic model, or 

theory of action. These factors are 

content neutral, and, if used, may help 

the Department to fund well-designed 

and thoughtful projects that are 

proposed by capable applicants. 

Conversely, absolute, competitive 

preference, and invitational priorities 

are used in discretionary grant 

competitions to guide applicants to 

propose projects that respond to a 

specific need, such as increasing 

completion rates for High-need Students 

at the postsecondary level, or improving 

family engagement efforts in schools. 

Thus, the priorities used in 

discretionary grant competitions 

instruct applicants in what to propose 

in their applications, while the 

Department uses selection criteria to 

assess how well the applicants could 

implement their proposed projects 

within the context of the priorities, in 

addition to the underlying statute and 

any applicable rules or regulations. 

Finally, we do not think that grouping 

priorities is necessary since they are 

designed so that each discretionary 

grant program may use one or a 

combination of several priorities in its 

competition, as appropriate; and further 

grouping could limit flexibility in using 

the priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that, in establishing the Supplemental 

Priorities, the Department is 

inappropriately bypassing the legislative 

process, and providing itself with total 

discretion over how each priority will 

be used in discretionary grant programs. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concerns; however, the 

Department is not bypassing the 

legislative process. Section 410 of the 

General Education Provisions Act 

(GEPA) authorizes the Secretary ‘‘to 

make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and 

amend rules and regulations governing 

the manner of operation of, and 

governing the applicable programs 

administered by, the Department.’’ (20 

U.S.C. 1221e–3.) When establishing 

rules—such as these priorities—the 

Department is required to obtain and 

consider public comment. (20 U.S.C. 

1232(d); see also 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.) 

Establishing these priorities through 

rulemaking at one time simply enables 

the Department to avoid the expenditure 

of resources otherwise needed to 

conduct a separate rulemaking for each 

grant competition for which it would 

want to apply one or more of the 

priorities. The statutory provisions cited 

above authorize the establishment of 

these priorities. 

Second, the commenter is correct that 

the Department will have discretion to 

decide which of the priorities, if any, 

are applicable to a particular 

discretionary grant competition. 

However, its decision to apply one or 

more to a particular competition, and to 

do so as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational priorities, 

must be consistent with the statute 

authorizing the program for which the 

Department has announced that 

competition and the statutory 

provisions identified in the preceding 

paragraph. Furthermore, we note that 

use of these priorities in any particular 

grant competition is not mandatory. 

Finally, to effectively carry out our 

responsibilities to award discretionary 

grant funds in a timely manner, our 

administrative regulations clearly 

delineate areas in which the Department 

may exercise discretion. This discretion 

includes, for example, selecting 

priorities from those established by 

Department regulations or statutory 

language, program regulations, or 

statutory provisions; deciding whether 

priorities should be absolute or 

competitive; and establishing selection 

criteria by which applications will be 

judged. (See, e.g., 34 CFR 75.105, 

75.209, and 75.210.) Moreover, 

supplemental priorities that the 

Department may apply to its grant 

competitions have been available since 

October 11, 2006 (71 FR 60046). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter wrote that 

Priority 2—Influencing the Development 

of Non-Cognitive Factors and Priority 

12—Promoting Diversity should be 

eliminated because they do not focus 

specifically on educational outcomes 

and may conflict with family values. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern, but are unclear 

on how Priorities 2 and 12 would affect 

‘‘family values.’’ The commenter did not 

define ‘‘family values,’’ so we cannot be 

certain which particular values the 

commenter considers at risk. We also 

note that Priority 2 and Priority 12 

include implicit references to academic 

outcomes: Projects designed to meet 

Priority 2 would need to improve some 

combination of student academic 

behaviors, academic mindset, 

perseverance, self-regulation, social and 

emotional skills, and approaches toward 

learning strategies, and projects 

designed to meet Priority 12 would need 

to prepare students for success in the 

workforce. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: Two commenters 

suggested several edits across each 

priority to better reflect afterschool and 

expanded learning programs. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for the suggestions, and agree that highquality afterschool and expanded 

learning programs may be effective 

mechanisms for engaging students, and 

their families, in their academic lives. 

For this reason, we have modified some 

of the priorities to include a focus on 

programs such as these in addition to 

schools, thereby broadening the scope of 

those priorities to include afterschool, 

expanded learning, and other 

community-based programs. 

Changes: In Priority 1—Improving 

Early Learning and Development 

Outcomes, Priority 14—Improving 

Parent, Family, and Community 

Engagement, and the definitions for 

Community Engagement and Parent and 

Family Engagement, we have included 

an emphasis on ‘‘programs’’ and 

‘‘program staff’’ so that communitybased programs could be supported 

through these priorities. 

Comment: One commenter urged us 

to better support projects that are 

designed to increase academic outcomes 

for students in middle school. 

Discussion: We agree that the middle 

grades are important to a student’s 

overall academic outcomes. We note 

that projects designed to support 

student success in middle school could 

meet many of the priorities in this NFP; 

for example, a project designed to 

implement Personalized Learning 

approaches to ensure appropriate 

support and academic excellence could 

be targeted at students in the middle 

grades. We prioritize early learning and 

development and postsecondary access, 

affordability, and completion separately 

because projects designed to address 

these areas would largely fall outside 

the kindergarten-through-12th grade (K– 

12) sphere, or may seek to improve 

different outcomes that would require a 

different set of strategies. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to include a priority 

focused on school turnaround, similar 

to the priority included in the current 

Supplemental Priorities published in 

2010 (75 FR 78485) and corrected and 

republished in 2011 (76 FR 27637) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73429 

(2010 Supplemental Priorities). The 

commenter recognized that a few of the 

proposed priorities referenced teachers 

or principals who work in Lowestperforming Schools, but wished to see 

specific support for Priority Schools in 

our discretionary grant programs. 

Discussion: In drafting the NPP, the 

Department considered lessons learned 

in implementing discretionary grant 

programs. One lesson we learned from 

our implementation of the 2010 

Supplemental Priorities was that the 

priority focused on turning around 

Persistently-lowest Achieving Schools 

was not broadly applicable across our 

programs. We think that integrating 

such efforts into other priorities may 

allow us to use the discretionary grant 

programs to encourage turnaround 

initiatives in ways that better align with 

the programs’ purposes. For that reason, 

we decided to approach supporting 

these schools differently by retaining a 

focus on students in schools that are in 

urgent need of support. As the 

commenter noted, we included in 

Priority 9—Improving Teacher 

Effectiveness and Promoting Equitable 

Access to Effective Teachers and Priority 

10—Improving the Effectiveness of 

Principals references to Lowestperforming Schools. Students in these 

schools are also a focus of Priority 4— 

Supporting High-Need Students. Our 

definition of Lowest-performing Schools 

is designed to include struggling schools 

in all States, regardless of whether the 

State has received a flexibility waiver 

from the Department under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). We do 

not think that including a special 

priority for school turnaround is 

necessary in this NFP because the 

students and educators in these schools 

would be a focus of these other 

priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we include in the NFP several 

Federal coordination efforts, including 

joint ventures between the Department 

and the U.S. Department of Labor to 

create a cooperative grant application 

process, manage contracts, provide 

team-based technical assistance, and 

promote a particular mechanism for 

workforce program performance 

reporting. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestions, but we cannot 

make the administrative and procedural 

changes the commenter suggested 

because the purpose of this NFP is to 

announce final priorities and 

definitions, based on our current policy 

agenda, for use in discretionary grant 

programs. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 1—Improving Early Learning 

and Development Outcomes 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

general support for Priority 1 and 

suggested that we incorporate the 

concept of program leadership into the 

priority, noting that it is a critical factor 

in program success. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support for this priority 

and agree that leadership is important to 

the success of any early learning and 

development program. We have revised 

subpart (b) of Priority 1 to emphasize 

that it includes administrators, which 

may include directors, supervisors, and 

other early learning and development 

program leaders. 

Change: We have added ‘‘including 

administrators’’ to subpart (b) so that it 

now reads: ‘‘Improving the quality and 

effectiveness of the early learning 

workforce so that early childhood 

educators, including administrators, 

have the knowledge, skills, and abilities 

necessary to improve young children’s 

health, social-emotional, and cognitive 

outcomes.’’ 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for mixed-delivery 

models discussed in Priority 1. Two 

commenters suggested we revise subpart 

(d) to include a focus on communitywide mixed-delivery systems. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for communitywide mixed-delivery models and agree 

that they are important. We have 

therefore revised subpart (d) to include 

a focus on community-based programs, 

which will allow discretionary grant 

programs to prioritize in competitions 

community-wide mixed-delivery 

models and other community-based 

strategies. 

Changes: We have added ‘‘whether 

offered in schools or community-based 

settings’’ to subpart (d) so that it now 

reads: ‘‘Including preschool, whether 

offered in schools or community-based 

settings, as part of elementary education 

programs and systems in order to 

expand opportunities for preschool 

students and teachers.’’ 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that they appreciated the inclusion of 

the coordination and alignment between 

early learning and development systems 

and elementary education systems in 

subpart (c) of Priority 1. One commenter 

noted that, while vertical alignment 

between early learning and 

development and early elementary 

programs is highlighted in Priority 1, we 

should also focus on horizontal 

alignment with existing early childhood 

programs. 

One commenter suggested that we 

clarify that early learning and 

development systems include early 

intervention. Three commenters 

suggested that we emphasize 

meaningful transition planning that 

includes parents and families. Another 

commenter asked that we emphasize 

knowledge and skills as a way to 

improve transitions from birth through 

third grade. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for subpart (c). 

While we do not define ‘‘early learning 

and development systems’’ or ‘‘early 

learning and development programs,’’ 

we mention early learning and 

development programs in subpart (a) of 

Priority 1, which supports projects that 

increase access to high-quality 

programs, particularly for Children with 

High Needs. Early learning and 

development programs may include 

early intervention. We do not think that 

it is necessary to include a specific 

reference to ‘‘knowledge and skills as a 

way to improve transitions from birth 

through third grade’’ because the 

priority does not list the specific 

strategies that should be used to 

improve the coordination and alignment 

between early learning and 

development systems and elementary 

education systems, but rather allows 

applicants the flexibility to propose how 

they would improve this coordination 

and alignment. We also note that 

Priority 1 asks that all projects be 

designed to improve one or more 

outcomes across the Essential Domains 

of School Readiness, which include 

several examples of knowledge and 

skills. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

suggestion that it would be helpful to 

include in Priority 1 a focus on 

transition planning, particularly for 

parents and families as their children 

transition into kindergarten. We also 

appreciate the commenters’ suggestions 

on improving coordination among early 

learning and development programs and 

engaging parents in the transition 

process. 

Changes: We have changed the 

language in subpart (c) so that it now 

reads: ‘‘Improving the coordination and 

alignment among early learning and 

development systems and between such 

systems and elementary education 

systems, including coordination and 

alignment in engaging and supporting 

families and improving transitions for 

children along the birth-through-thirdgrade continuum, in accordance with 

applicable privacy laws.’’ 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

strong support for State flexibility to 

establish multiple ways to improve the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73430 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

quality and effectiveness of the early 

learning workforce. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support for State 

flexibility. We believe the priority 

allows flexibility for applicants to focus 

proposed projects on improving the 

quality and effectiveness of their early 

learning workforce in accordance with 

their States’ laws and approaches. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that we define terms such as 

‘‘preschool,’’ ‘‘early learning provider,’’ 

and ‘‘early learning programs.’’ One 

commenter asked that ‘‘preschool’’ be 

defined as early learning from birth to 

age five. Other commenters requested 

that ‘‘early learning provider’’ and 

‘‘early learning programs’’ be defined 

and used in a manner consistent with 

the Preschool Development and 

Expansion grants program. One 

commenter requested that we clarify 

that parent and family engagement and 

cultural and linguistic sensitivity are 

important elements of high-quality early 

learning. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ suggestions. We do not 

think it is appropriate to establish a 

formal definition for ‘‘preschool’’ 

because, while the term is generally 

understood to mean early education that 

takes place before kindergarten, each 

State may have different requirements. 

We note that the term ‘‘early learning 

provider’’ is not used in this NFP, nor 

is the term ‘‘early learning program.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we clarify how assessment results will 

be used to determine if our efforts to 

align preschool with early elementary 

grades are working. The commenter also 

asserted that the assessments should be 

research-based. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendations. While 

the focus of Priority 1 is not primarily 

on assessments, we think that there are 

several ways in which grantees could 

use assessments and their results to 

enhance the quality of their projects. For 

example, projects designed to address 

Priority 1 should improve early learning 

and development outcomes across one 

or more of the Essential Domains of 

School Readiness, which includes areas 

of language and literacy development, 

cognition, and general knowledge. We 

also note that any project funded by the 

Department must be evaluated in 

accordance with 34 CFR 75.590 

(Evaluation by the grantee). We think 

that one way in which a grant recipient 

proposing a project designed to address 

Priority 1 could meet this evaluation 

requirement is by assessing students on 

the Essential Domains of School 

Readiness that are relevant to that 

project. As such, we do not think it is 

necessary to include a focus on 

research-based assessments in this NFP. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concerns regarding the examples 

provided in the background section of 

the NPP. Specifically, the commenter 

was concerned that an early learning 

provider that did not offer a full-day 

program, but that had improved early 

learning and development outcomes, 

would not meet the description of 

‘‘high-quality early learning’’ provided 

in the background section. 

Discussion: We note that the examples 

in the background section of the NPP 

were meant to clarify what we mean by 

‘‘high-quality early learning’’ and are 

not binding. We do not define ‘‘highquality’’ because early learning and 

development programs may cover a 

wide range of age groups from birth 

through kindergarten entry. Group size, 

ratios, and professional qualifications, 

for example, will differ depending on 

the age of the children served, and it is 

therefore difficult to set a ‘‘high-quality’’ 

standard that would be appropriate for 

all types of programs for children of 

different ages. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we emphasize the effects that stress and 

trauma may have on the development of 

the brain in Priority 1. 

Discussion: We appreciate this 

suggestion from the commenter. We 

think that this concept could be 

supported already through subpart (b) of 

Priority 1, which references health, 

socio-emotional, and cognitive 

outcomes. In addition, we think that 

projects designed to meet Priority 2— 

Influencing the Development of NonCognitive Factors and Priority 13— 

Improving School Climate, Behavioral 

Supports, and Correctional Education 

could include elements of this 

suggestion. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that we include a new subpart in 

Priority 1 focused on increasing the 

percentage of children who are able to 

read and perform mathematics at grade 

level by the end of third grade. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ suggestion but note that a 

change is unnecessary because, given 

our definition of Essential Domains of 

Schools Readiness, these types of 

projects would currently be covered by 

the introductory paragraph of the 

priority: ‘‘Projects that are designed to 

improve early learning and 

development outcomes across one or 

more of the Essential Domains of 

Schools Readiness.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

early learning should be an absolute 

priority in all discretionary grant 

competitions. The commenter also 

requested that we refer to ‘‘early 

learning and education’’ consistently 

throughout the NFP to emphasize our 

cradle-to-career focus. 

Discussion: These priorities are 

intended as a menu of options for our 

discretionary grant programs. The 

Department may choose which, if any, 

of the priorities or subparts are 

appropriate for a particular program 

competition. If the Department chooses 

to use the supplemental priorities, it 

also has discretion to decide how the 

priorities should be used in the grant 

competitions. Furthermore, because 

some discretionary grant programs that 

may decide to use some of these 

priorities are statutorily required to 

serve only K–12 or postsecondary 

students (in other words, not early 

learning students or programs), it is not 

appropriate to require all programs 

using the Supplemental Priorities to 

include an absolute priority or focus on 

early learning. 

In addition, we think that using the 

phrase ‘‘education’’ throughout the 

priorities is broad enough to include 

early learning and development. Unless 

explicitly stated otherwise, the priorities 

could be used in competitions that focus 

on early learning and development 

programs. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 2—Influencing the 

Development of Non-Cognitive Factors 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for this priority, and 

many of these commenters also 

recommended expanding it. Four 

commenters suggested including a focus 

on tools that appropriately measure the 

development of non-cognitive factors. 

One commenter advocated for the 

priority supporting the assessment, 

measurement, and design of highquality instructional tools that provide 

for students’ mastery of non-cognitive 

skills. Three commenters recommended 

that the priority include a focus on 

professional development for teachers 

or district and school personnel; and 

two commenters made similar 

recommendations about providing 

training for parents. One commenter 

noted the importance of teachers, 

parents, and students learning a 

‘‘growth mindset’’ to recognize one’s 

own control of his or her growth and 

achievement. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73431 

A number of commenters suggested 

that the Department use the priority to 

encourage the use of specific 

approaches, including arts education, 

physical education, expanded learning 

time, and afterschool or summer 

programs. Another commenter noted the 

importance of addressing non-cognitive 

factors for middle school students. 

Discussion: Although we appreciate 

the commenters’ recommendations for 

how this priority could be expanded, we 

want to clarify that the priority does not 

prohibit the projects described by the 

commenters so long as the projects are 

designed to improve students’ mastery 

of non-cognitive skills and behaviors 

and enhance student motivation and 

engagement in learning. Applicants 

have the discretion to determine what 

approach or intervention will best 

address the priority and meet the needs 

of the targeted student population. 

Finally, because any one of these 

Supplemental Priorities may be used in 

a variety of discretionary grant 

programs, we do not think it is 

appropriate to prescribe a specific 

approach to addressing this priority. As 

such, we decline to revise the priority 

in a manner that might limit its use. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding the reduction of maladaptive 

behaviors that interfere with learning as 

an expected outcome of projects funded 

under this priority. 

Discussion: This priority requires 

applicants to propose projects that 

would improve students’ mastery of 

non-cognitive skills and behaviors and 

enhance student motivation and 

engagement in learning. These stated 

outcomes, which are specific to the 

priority, provide applicants with the 

discretion to develop performance 

measures that are appropriate to their 

specific contexts and relevant to their 

proposed projects. A performance 

measure for the reduction of 

maladaptive behaviors may be 

appropriate for a particular project or 

discretionary grant program, but may 

not be appropriate for all projects or 

discretionary grant programs that may 

use the priority. We do not think it is 

necessary to prescribe a performance 

measure that applicants may already use 

under the expected outcomes that are 

included in the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

discussed the meaning of ‘‘noncognitive factors.’’ Specifically, one 

commenter suggested that the 

Department identify specific indicators 

of success in school settings, such as 

those indicators referenced in the 

Division for Early Childhood’s recent 

publication on recommended practices 

in early intervention. Another 

commenter recommended the inclusion 

of the four academic mindsets that are 

discussed in the University of Chicago 

Consortium of Chicago School Research 

June 2012 publication (i.e., sense of 

belonging, implicit theories of ability, 

self-efficacy, and expectancy-value 

theory). The commenter noted that these 

mindsets help students identify their 

educational and social needs as well as 

intellectual and emotional development 

needs, which provides a critical 

connection between college readiness 

and college fit. 

Discussion: Research on non-cognitive 

skills and behaviors is emerging. We 

recognize that the education field does 

not have a standard definition for noncognitive factors, and we have not 

defined that term here. Rather, we 

provided examples of non-cognitive 

skills and behaviors in the priority. By 

using examples that reflect current 

research, we aim to provide a common 

understanding of our intent for the 

priority while also allowing applicants 

the flexibility to adjust as new research 

emerges. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Five commenters 

expressed support for the priority, but 

requested that the Department change 

its title. One commenter noted that the 

behavior and processes that the 

Department includes in ‘‘non-cognitive 

factors’’ involve cognition and suggested 

the Department use the term 

‘‘metacognitive learning skills’’ instead. 

Another commenter recommended 

using ‘‘foundational skills’’ because 

those skills are inherently embedded in 

cognitive processes. Three commenters 

offered ‘‘social and emotional skills,’’ 

‘‘social and emotional competency,’’ or 

‘‘social and intellectual habits’’ as 

alternative titles for the priority. 

Discussion: We recognize and 

appreciate the concerns of the 

commenters and the potential risk of 

using a term that suggests that cognition 

is not involved in the process of 

developing the skills and behaviors 

covered under this priority. However, 

we also realize that ‘‘non-cognitive’’ is 

a term that is commonly used and 

understood in the education field and 

that broad consensus has not been 

reached on a new term that would 

replace it. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter applauded 

this priority, and encouraged the 

Department to consider the difference 

between beliefs and skills, the need for 

students to develop non-cognitive 

factors at both the classroom and 

cultural levels, and the importance of 

continuing funding for the practical 

application of researched interventions. 

Another commenter noted the 

importance of using empirical research 

on targeted non-cognitive interventions 

to spread the use of effective programs. 

Discussion: Priority 2 could support 

projects that may address the issues 

raised by the commenters. We do not 

think that it is necessary to revise the 

priority to require research, because the 

Department has discretion to select 

factors from 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality 

of the project design) to encourage 

applicants to provide evidence or a 

reasonable hypothesis in support of 

their proposed projects. Under 34 CFR 

75.266 (What procedures does the 

Secretary use if the Secretary decides to 

give special consideration to 

applications supported by strong or 

moderate evidence of effectiveness?), 

the Department has the discretion to 

provide incentives to applicants that 

propose projects based on rigorous 

evidence through the use of competitive 

preference or absolute priorities. 

Finally, the Department has the 

discretion to select factors from 34 CFR 

75.210(h) (Quality of the project 

evaluation) to encourage applicants to 

design project evaluations that are 

appropriate for the areas of study and 

research goals for a particular program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to revise the priority to 

clarify that projects must set high 

expectations for all students, including 

students with disabilities. Another 

commenter noted that it is particularly 

important for students with learning 

and attention issues to develop noncognitive skills. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that it is important to set 

high expectations for all students, 

including students with disabilities. 

This priority includes all students, and 

does not include language limiting its 

focus to a subset of students. As the 

language of the priority does not limit 

access for or, expectations of, a subset 

of students, we do not think a revision 

to the priority is necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Proposed Priority 3—Promoting 

Personalized Learning 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the Department’s emphasis on 

Personalized Learning is misplaced and 

that we should remove Priority 3 from 

the NFP. Specifically, the commenter 

cautioned that tools developed outside 

of the classroom would be less effective 

at informing instruction than tools 

developed within the classroom through 

face-to-face interactions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73432 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

2Available at: http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/

files/netp2010.pdf. 

Discussion: We disagree with the 

underlying assumption of the comment 

that grant funding would result in 

projects using tools that were developed 

without consideration for the classroom 

context. Depending on the discretionary 

grant program, local educational 

agencies (LEAs), State educational 

agencies (SEAs), nonprofit 

organizations, and institutions of higher 

education (IHEs) may be applicants. 

Applicants are primarily responsible for 

deciding what tool or approach will be 

used and we do not think that Federal 

funding would cause applicants to 

propose using tools that are not relevant 

or useful for informing instruction. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for the priority, and 

some of these commenters also provided 

suggestions for expanding it. One 

commenter proposed adding a new 

subpart focusing on professional 

development. One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

a focus that would support projects that 

propose to design and implement 

networks that support the technology 

and dynamic learning environments 

necessary for students to experience 

‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ Personalized 

Learning. Another commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed priority did 

not require applicants to intentionally 

plan for scaling the use of technology to 

deliver personalized resources to 

students, and suggested that the 

Department require applicants 

addressing the priority to develop a 

sustainable plan for leveraging 

technology. Conversely, another 

commenter suggested that we clarify 

that applicants could propose projects 

that use Personalized Learning 

modalities other than technology. 

A few commenters noted that the 

Department’s 2010 National Educational 

Technology Plan identified universal 

design for learning (UDL) as a method 

for supporting all students’ learning, 

and suggested revising the proposed 

priority to encourage projects that 

support Personalized Learning based on 

UDL principles. One commenter noted 

that Personalized Learning can be 

achieved through competency-based 

learning, and another commenter 

suggested that the priority support 

projects that use competency-based 

learning as a component of Personalized 

Learning with a requirement that 

students demonstrate a mastery of 

college- and career-ready standards. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support of the priority and 

recommendations for how it might be 

expanded. Regarding the suggestion that 

we include a subpart on professional 

development for educators, we note that 

subpart (a) of this priority supports the 

provision of professional development 

on Personalized Learning and the use of 

data as part of a project implementing 

Personalized Learning approaches. We 

do not think it would be appropriate to 

fund a project that provides professional 

development only on Personalized 

Learning, without implementing the 

approaches for which the professional 

development is being provided. 

Regarding the recommendation that 

this priority include a focus on 

designing and implementing networks, 

we point the commenter to subpart (a) 

of Priority 11—Leveraging Technology 

to Support Instructional Practice and 

Professional Development, because it 

supports the infrastructure that schools 

and districts need to increase students’ 

and educators’ access to high-quality 

digital tools. Although subpart (a) of 

Priority 11 specifically references access 

to high-speed Internet and devices, the 

priority, as proposed, would not 

preclude an applicant from also 

supporting the development of networks 

that support the technology and 

dynamic learning environments that are 

necessary for students to experience 

‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ Personalized 

Learning. Because the purpose of this 

priority is to implement Personalized 

Learning approaches that may or may 

not require the use of technology, we 

decline to revise this priority. 

We agree with the commenter that 

Personalized Learning can be achieved 

through learning modalities other than 

technology. For that reason, the 

definition of Personalized Learning 

requires tailoring the pace of learning 

and instructional approaches to the 

needs of individual learners, but does 

not require that tailoring to be done 

through the use of technology. Although 

technology is commonly used to 

implement Personalized Learning, other 

approaches may also be used to address 

subpart (a) of Priority 3. 

We agree with the commenter that, if 

an applicant is using technology to 

implement or deliver Personalized 

Learning services or resources, the 

applicant should consider how it will 

sustain its use of technology. However, 

because an applicant may address the 

priority in a manner that does not rely 

on technology, it is not appropriate to 

require applicants to develop a 

sustainability plan for leveraging 

technology. In a program using this 

priority the Department could use 

selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210(c) 

(Quality of the project design) to 

encourage applicants to address their 

sustainability needs as part of their 

proposed projects or develop selection 

criteria under 34 CFR 75.209 to achieve 

the same purpose. 

The Department’s 2010 National 

Educational Technology Plan 2

discusses the importance of making 

learning experiences accessible and the 

use of UDL principles. Although the 

plan calls for the use of technology to 

empower Personalized Learning and 

provides examples of how to do it, we 

do not think that it is appropriate to 

prescribe a single approach or principle 

that all applicants must use when 

addressing this priority. We also note 

that Personalized Learning can be 

achieved through approaches other than 

competency-based learning. This 

priority does not prohibit an applicant 

from using the approach or principle 

that it determines to be most suitable for 

its project. As such, we decline to revise 

the priority to include explicit 

references to UDL or competency-based 

learning approaches. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested additional expected outcomes 

to be included in the priority. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department emphasize that 

Personalized Learning should be used 

for developmental college reading and 

mathematics to reduce the number of 

students who need remedial coursework 

when they enter postsecondary 

programs. One commenter proposed 

adding increasing academic recovery as 

a required outcome for projects 

addressing the priority. Another 

commenter recommended including a 

focus on promoting knowledge and 

skills acquisition in subpart (a) of 

Priority 3. Similarly, another commenter 

requested that the adoption of social 

and emotional skills be added to 

subparts (a) and (b) of Priority 3. 

Discussion: We do not want to limit 

or prescribe specific outcomes or 

performance measures that applicants 

could propose to use in their projects. 

The priority requires applicants to 

improve student academic outcomes 

and close academic opportunity or 

attainment gaps. These outcomes are 

broad and provide applicants the 

discretion to select and propose 

performance measures that are most 

appropriate for the students who are 

served by their projects. Priority 3 does 

not prohibit applicants from proposing 

performance measures for reducing the 

number of students who are 

participating in remedial coursework, 

increasing academic recovery, 

promoting skills and knowledge 

acquisition, or adopting social and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73433 

3Available at: http://www.ed.gov/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/2014-PPPs-FactSheet.pdf. 

emotional skills, so long as the proposed 

project is implementing Personalized 

Learning and is designed to improve 

student academic outcomes and close 

academic opportunity and attainment 

gaps. 

Additionally, we do not want to 

restrict the use of the priority. If we 

were, for example, to revise the priority 

to require a focus on reducing the 

number of students who are 

participating in remedial coursework 

when they enter postsecondary 

education, we could not use the priority 

in discretionary grant programs that 

focus on early grades because it may not 

be possible to measure the success of 

the outcome during the project period. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

more information and research is 

needed on Personalized Learning and 

stated that the priority should require 

applicants to conduct a rigorous 

evaluation and make the findings and 

lessons learned from their evaluations 

publicly available. 

Discussion: The Department can 

select factors from 34 CFR 75.210(h) 

(Quality of the project evaluation) to 

encourage applicants to design project 

evaluations that are appropriate for the 

areas of study and research goals for a 

particular program. Because the 

Department may promote rigorous 

evaluations as part of a program’s 

selection criteria, it is not necessary to 

also include those requirements in the 

Supplemental Priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter agreed that 

Digital Credentials support Personalized 

Learning, but cautioned that they 

should not be used as the only 

approach. 

Discussion: We agree that Digital 

Credentials support, but are not the only 

approach to, Personalized Learning. For 

this reason, we included subpart (a), 

which focuses broadly on implementing 

Personalized Learning approaches 

without identifying a specific approach. 

However, with more students 

participating in online courses, and 

using digital learning resources to 

achieve their academic goals, we think 

that it is appropriate to include the 

award of Digital Credentials that are 

aligned with college- and career-ready 

standards and based on Personalized 

Learning. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 4—Supporting High-Need 

Students 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for this priority, 

including the expanded focus that 

allows applicants to propose projects 

that are designed to improve academic 

outcomes or learning environments for 

students. However, a few commenters 

asked that the Department define 

‘‘academic outcomes’’ and ‘‘learning 

environments.’’ 

Many commenters also applauded the 

broader list of student groups that may 

be served under this priority. However, 

some commenters recommended that 

the Department include additional 

groups of students, such as students 

living in public housing, first-generation 

college students, adjudicated youth in 

residential sites, high-ability and gifted 

students, Native American students, 

Alaska native students, youth in 

alternative schools, and students who 

are served by schools that are highly 

segregated by race or ethnicity. One 

commenter suggested the Department 

distinguish between the different types 

of rural LEAs under the priority. 

Another commenter requested that the 

Department remove from Priority 4 the 

focus on students served by rural LEAs, 

or revise it to include students in both 

rural and urban LEAs. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for Priority 4. 

However, given the variety of programs 

in which the priority may be used, we 

do not think that it is appropriate to 

prescribe what would constitute an 

‘‘academic outcome’’ or ‘‘learning 

environment.’’ Any definition would 

risk restricting the use of the priority. 

Similarly, because one of the options 

for students who could be served under 

Priority 4 is High-need Students, 

defined broadly as students at risk of 

educational failure or otherwise in need 

of special assistance and support, it is 

not necessary to add most of the 

suggested groups to the list. However, 

upon review we think that it is 

appropriate to include a focus on 

students who are members of federally 

recognized Indian tribes in the list, as 

these tribes constitute distinct 

governmental entities with unique 

needs. We note that federally recognized 

Indian tribes include many Alaska 

native entities. We have made this 

change. 

Regarding the recommendation that 

we remove the option to focus on 

students in Rural LEAs, or retain that 

focus but also include a focus on 

students in urban LEAs, we note that we 

include a specific focus on students 

who are served by rural LEAs because 

we acknowledge that the solutions to 

educational challenges may be different 

in rural communities than in urban and 

suburban communities and that there is 

a need for solutions that are unique to 

rural communities. For these reasons, 

we decline to remove the option or 

revise it to require a focus on students 

served by rural and urban LEAs. 

Changes: We have revised Priority 4 

so that it now includes ‘‘Students who 

are members of federally recognized 

Indian tribes’’ in the list of student 

subgroups that may be supported by 

projects addressing the priority. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department define 

‘‘disconnected youth’’ as used in 

Priority 4. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter and have added a definition 

of Disconnected Youth that is consistent 

with the Department’s Performance 

Partnerships for Disconnected Youth 

Fact Sheet.3 We note that this definition 

will apply to each priority in which the 

term Disconnected Youth is used. 

Changes: We have defined 

Disconnected Youth to mean lowincome individuals, ages 14–24, who 

are homeless, are in foster care, are 

involved in the justice system, or are not 

working or not enrolled in (or at risk of 

dropping out of) an educational 

institution. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for Priority 4, but noted that an 

effective method for improving 

outcomes for High-need Students is to 

increase salaries for teachers who work 

in urban LEAs where many students 

may live in poverty. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that such methods may be 

effective, and include a subpart in 

Priority 9—Improving Teacher 

Effectiveness and Promoting Equitable 

Access to Effective Teachers that 

promotes equitable access to effective 

teachers for students from low-income 

families and minority students. An 

applicant could propose a project that 

provides incentives, through salary 

increases or other means, effective 

teachers to work in schools with high 

concentrations of such students. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 5—Increasing Postsecondary 

Access, Affordability, and Completion 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concerns regarding the 

financial burden of the Supplemental 

Priorities on students. One commenter 

noted that we do not include a focus on 

reducing the cost burden for 

postsecondary students and another 

commenter indicated that the priorities 

would further burden individuals with 

student loan debt. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concerns, but think that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73434 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

there are several references in the 

priorities that address reducing the cost 

burden for postsecondary students. For 

example, subpart (a) of Priority 5 

focuses on projects that will reduce the 

net cost and median student loan debt 

for High-need Students who enroll in 

college, other postsecondary education, 

or other career and technical education. 

In addition, we also include a priority 

focused on increasing academic 

outcomes for High-need Students, as 

well as a priority that focuses on 

developing and implementing collegeready standards and assessments, which 

help to reduce the number of students 

who arrive at college unprepared and in 

need of additional time to complete 

their degrees, and thereby reduce such 

students’ postsecondary costs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we add a priority that would focus 

on four-year IHE applicants, stating that 

the Federal government invests large 

amounts in IHEs annually, but does not 

ask for reported outcomes in return. In 

addition, the commenter suggested that 

we give low-performing IHEs three to 

six years to improve and proposed 

definitions for ‘‘low-performing college’’ 

and ‘‘low graduation rate college.’’ The 

commenter also recommended that we 

recognize high-performing IHEs and 

award competitive preference priority 

points to those high-performing 

applicants that wish to implement 

projects that support colleges and 

universities with low graduation rates in 

improving their first-time, full-time 

student graduation rates. 

Discussion: We do not specify who 

may be eligible to apply for grants under 

this, or any, priority. The focus of this 

priority is intentionally not limited to 

projects proposed by IHEs, as we are 

focused on the outcomes for students, 

irrespective of the type of applicant. The 

type of applicant will be specified by 

the eligibility requirements for the 

discretionary grant programs in which 

this priority is used and, therefore, we 

do not think that it is necessary to revise 

the priority in a manner that would 

limit its use. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we further prioritize affordability 

by adding an additional subpart that 

would support projects that provide 

meaningful information about college to 

students and their families. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ suggestion and agree that it 

is important to support projects that 

provide meaningful information about 

college to students and their families. 

Subpart (c) of Priority 5, which supports 

projects that increase postsecondary 

enrollment or completion through 

college preparation, awareness, 

recruitment, application, and selection 

activities, would support this type of 

project. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we include a subpart to support the 

development and implementation of an 

ongoing feedback process between IHEs 

and LEAs, and suggested a definition for 

‘‘ongoing feedback process.’’ The 

commenter also recommended creating 

a new priority that focused on key 

secondary and postsecondary transition 

points. Another commenter also noted 

the importance of coordination between 

secondary and postsecondary leaders to 

ensure that coursework at the high 

school level adequately prepares 

students for college. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ suggestions and think that 

projects designed to improve those 

transitions or coordination fall within 

the scope of Priority 5. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to include the early 

childhood workforce in its initiatives 

related to student loans and teacher 

preparation program involvement. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support for the 

Department’s initiatives on the early 

childhood workforce and agree that this 

continued focus is important. We have 

included Priority 1—Improving Early 

Learning and Development Outcomes, 

which includes in subpart (b) a focus on 

the early childhood workforce. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to include a focus on K–12 

in-school and out-of-school programs 

that provide students with appropriate 

support to enter college prepared. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestions and think that 

these types of programs fall within the 

scope of Priority 5. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to prioritize underserved 

college students who are obtaining 

STEM degrees. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important to prioritize underserved 

college students who are obtaining 

STEM degrees. Under Priority 7— 

Promoting Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics 

Education, we include subpart (d), 

which addresses the commenter’s 

request. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters made 

suggestions to improve subpart (b) of 

Priority 5. Specifically, one commenter 

suggested we remove the reference to 

‘‘on time’’ completion in subpart (b), 

noting that students with disabilities 

often need additional time to complete 

college. Another commenter asked that 

we prioritize projects that focus on 

preparing middle school students to be 

on a college path. A third commenter 

asked that we emphasize the role that 

IHEs can play in developing secondary 

programs designed to improve degree 

and certificate completion, noting that 

the goal must be to increase completion 

in programs that represent high-quality 

academic knowledge and 

understanding. 

Discussion: We recognize that some 

groups of students struggle 

disproportionately to complete college 

on time. It is for this reason that we 

want to prioritize projects that could 

help these students to complete their 

degrees more quickly through better 

academic preparation. 

Regarding the suggestion for 

preparation of middle school students, 

the priority does not preclude 

applicants who address subpart (b) of 

Priority 5 from proposing middle school 

interventions. 

Finally, regarding the suggestion that 

we emphasize the role that IHEs can 

play in developing secondary programs 

designed to improve degree and 

certificate completion, this priority 

intentionally focuses on student 

outcomes. We think that projects 

designed to improve coordination 

between IHEs and high schools already 

fall within the scope of Priority 5. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters made 

suggestions to the language in Priority 5 

so that specific strategies could be 

included in the subparts. Specifically, 

one commenter suggested the inclusion 

of early college high schools in subpart 

(c). Two commenters suggested that we 

include dual enrollment and early 

college high school programs as 

strategies in subpart (f), while another 

commenter suggested that we include 

dual enrollment and early college high 

school programs as a separate subpart. 

In addition, one commenter asked that 

we revise the priority so that applicants 

could propose strategies that do not 

involve online or hybrid approaches. 

Another commenter suggested that we 

define ‘‘hybrid learning opportunities.’’ 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ suggestions and think that 

many of the suggestions made are 

within the scope of subparts (b) or (c) of 

Priority 5. We decline to revise Priority 

5 in a manner that might limit its use. 

We think that hybrid learning 

opportunities consist of a combination 

of online and in-person techniques. We 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73435 

4Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/

default/files/docs/skills_report.pdf. 

5Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/

default/files/omb/memoranda/2014/m-14-15.pdf. 6Available at: http://clear.dol.gov/. 

think that this term is commonly used 

and understood in the field and, 

therefore, do not think it is necessary to 

define it. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we clarify that our use of the phrase 

‘‘regular high school diploma’’ in 

subpart (d) of Priority 5 is aligned with 

the definition of that phrase in 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(iv). 

Discussion: We agree that our 

definition of the term Regular High 

School Diploma should be aligned with 

34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(iv). We have 

included the definition of Regular High 

School Diploma in this NFP. 

Changes: We have indicated that 

applicants should refer to the definition 

for Regular High School Diploma 

included in this NFP. We have also 

added the definition of Regular High 

School Diploma in 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1)(iv) to the definitions 

section. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: After review, we decided 

that subpart (a) of Priority 5 may be 

challenging for applicants to address, 

because it would be very difficult to 

obtain information about the student 

loan default rate for High-need 

Students. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (a) 

so that it now reads: ‘‘Reducing the net 

cost, median student loan debt, and 

likelihood of student loan default for 

High-need Students . . .’’ 

Priority 6—Improving Job-Driven 

Training and Employment Outcomes 

Comment: One commenter supported 

this priority and asked that we ensure 

that it is aligned with the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s efforts and with 

the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA), enacted on 

July 22, 2014. Another commenter noted 

that, while subpart (d) of Priority 6 

includes a focus on providing Labor 

Market Information, we do not provide 

an incentive to applicants to use Labor 

Market Information to continuously 

improve training programs. 

Discussion: We support the 

Department of Labor’s efforts in this 

area and note that Priority 6 is fully 

aligned with WIOA. For example, WIOA 

promotes engagement with employers 

so that education and training programs 

supported by the Department can equip 

individuals with the education and 

skills sought by employers. 

We agree that thoughtfully using 

Labor Market Information should be 

included in this priority, and note that 

such a change would further align 

Priority 6 with Vice President Biden’s 

July 22, 2014 report to the President 

entitled Ready to Work: Job-Driven 

Training and American Opportunity.4

We also agree that using Labor Market 

Information effectively is important and 

have added a subpart to Priority 6 to 

encourage applicants to use it to inform 

their projects. We also define the term 

Labor Market Information in this NFP, 

and note that our definition aligns with 

the definition in the July 22, 2014 Office 

of Management and Budget 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Ensuring that 

Employment and Training Programs are 

Job-Driven.’’ 5

Changes: We have added a subpart to 

Priority 6 so that it now reads: ‘‘Using 

Labor Market Information to inform the 

focus of programs and to guide 

jobseekers in choosing the types of 

employment or fields of study, training, 

or credentials to pursue.’’ This subpart 

is subpart (e), and the proposed subpart 

(e) is now subpart (f). We have also 

included a definition of Labor Market 

Information, and note that applicants 

should refer to that definition when 

proposing a project that addresses 

subpart (d) of Priority 6, in addition to 

subpart (e). 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the goals of Priority 6 could be achieved 

through community partnerships, 

internships, and career and technical 

courses in high school. Another 

commenter suggested that we include 

an additional subpart focused on careerbased classroom learning, real-world 

workplace experiences, and wraparound 

supports for high school students. 

A third commenter urged the 

Department to provide a clear focus on 

academic skill-building in Priority 6. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

strategies listed by the first commenter 

could be used to address Priority 6. In 

general, we do not prescribe specific 

strategies because we think that 

applicants are best suited to propose 

appropriate strategies given the needs of 

their target populations. We do not want 

to limit the potential use of this priority. 

We therefore do not think that it is 

appropriate to incorporate into Priority 

6 the strategies suggested by the first 

commenter or the subpart suggested by 

the second commenter. 

We think that a project designed to 

improve academic skill-building would 

be well-aligned with subpart (c) of this 

priority, which seeks projects designed 

to improve job-driven training and 

employment outcomes by integrating 

education and training into a career 

pathways program through a variety of 

means. We also think that applicants 

proposing such a project would be wellpositioned to address subpart (d) of 

Priority 5—Increasing Postsecondary 

Access, Affordability, and Completion, 

which includes an explicit focus on 

obtaining basic and academic skills. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we remove the focus in Priority 6 on 

Low-skilled Adults and High-need 

Students, because, by limiting the scope 

to projects that serve only these 

individuals, it would impede systemic 

organizational change. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern and agree that all 

students deserve appropriate support. 

While subparts (b) and (c) of Priority 6 

do reference these groups specifically, a 

project could serve any other type of 

student so long as the project also serves 

Low-skilled Adults or other High-need 

Students. We think that it is important 

to focus on these groups because they 

may need more targeted assistance; 

however, applicants addressing Priority 

6 have flexibility in choosing the 

populations they will serve. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for ‘‘ability to benefit.’’ The 

commenter also suggested we focus on 

expanding research in the adult 

education and literacy field, and 

conduct a review of the historically low 

funding levels for adult education. 

Discussion: In the Administration’s 

FY 2015 budget request, we proposed to 

restore the ‘‘ability to benefit’’ provision 

for students who are enrolled in eligible 

career pathway programs to qualify for 

financial assistance. We note, however, 

that the ‘‘ability to benefit’’ requirement 

was eliminated by Congress in 2011. 

To better understand the best 

strategies to improve reading skills for 

struggling adult learners, the 

Department has invested in research on 

adult education through the Center for 

the Study of Adult Literacy, funded by 

the Institute of Education Sciences 

(IES). In addition, the Department of 

Labor has recently launched the 

Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and 

Research 6 to make data on labor topics 

more readily accessible. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

Priority 6, but was concerned that rural 

applicants would struggle to implement 

projects addressing this priority due to 

a dearth of employment opportunities in 

their communities. 

Discussion: We do not think that rural 

applicants would be disadvantaged by 

Priority 6, because its purpose is to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73436 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

7Available at: http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/

attach/TEGL15-10.pdf. 

support projects that narrow the gap 

between employment opportunities and 

workforce skills in every community, 

including rural communities. 

To address such gaps in high-need 

communities, we note that in January 

2014, President Obama announced the 

first five Promise Zones: The Choctaw 

Nation of Oklahoma, Los Angeles, 

Philadelphia, San Antonio, and 

Kentucky Highlands. On March 27, 

2014, the Department published an NFP 

for the Promise Zones Initiative (79 FR 

17035), which focuses Federal financial 

assistance on expanding the number of 

Department programs and projects that 

support activities in the abovementioned Promise Zones. We may now 

include in our discretionary grant 

competitions an absolute or competitive 

preference priority for areas designated 

as Promise Zones, meaning that 

applicants would have the incentive to 

design projects that support these areas. 

While the designated Promise Zones 

include a mix of rural and urban 

communities, we think that use of the 

Promise Zones priority will provide an 

incentive to applicants to support rural 

communities such as those described by 

the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we emphasize collaboration with labor 

unions in subpart (b) of Priority 6 

because they may already be providing 

work-based learning opportunities. 

Discussion: We agree that 

collaboration with labor unions and 

other workers’ organizations is 

important, and while we do not include 

an explicit focus on such collaboration 

in subpart (b), that collaboration is 

reflected in subpart (a) through the 

definition of Employer Engagement. We 

also note that the parenthetical list in 

subpart (b) is illustrative, and that 

applicants have flexibility in the types 

of opportunities they propose to 

provide. The strategies by which they 

propose to provide work-based learning 

opportunities are also at the applicant’s 

discretion, so an applicant could 

deliberately include collaboration with 

labor unions as part of its proposed 

approach. We think that the 

commenter’s suggestion is already 

within the scope of Priority 6. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter felt that 

the phrase ‘‘stackable credentials’’ in 

subpart (c) of Priority 6 was unclear, 

and suggested that we define the term. 

Two commenters recommended that we 

replace the term ‘‘industry-relevant 

certification’’ with ‘‘industry-recognized 

credentials,’’ as that term is more 

commonly used, and thus more 

commonly recognized, in the field. 

Another commenter asked that we 

explicitly include engagement with 

colleges, particularly community 

colleges, in subpart (c). 

Discussion: We value clarity and the 

use of common terms, and agree with 

the first commenter that Stackable 

Credentials should be defined. We have 

included a definition in this notice, and 

also indicate in subpart (c) that this term 

has been defined. Our definition is 

aligned with a December 15, 2010 

Department of Labor guidance 

document entitled ‘‘Increasing 

Credential, Degree, and Certificate 

Attainment by Participants of the Public 

Workforce System.’’ 7 We also agree 

with the commenters that ‘‘industryrecognized credentials’’ is a commonly 

used term, and have edited the subpart 

to reflect that. 

In response to the commenter who 

suggested that we include a focus on 

engaging colleges, we agree that such 

engagement would be important to the 

success of projects addressing this 

priority. Therefore, we include in 

subpart (c) a parenthetical phrase to 

indicate that applicants may consider 

including engagement of community 

colleges or other IHEs in their proposed 

projects. 

Changes: We have included a 

definition of Stackable Credentials, and 

note in subpart (c) of Priority 6 that 

applicants should refer to that 

definition. We also have replaced 

‘‘industry-relevant certification’’ with 

‘‘industry-recognized credentials’’ in 

subpart (c). Finally, we have included 

the following parenthetical phrase in 

subpart (c) to indicate that applicants 

may consider including engagement of 

community colleges or other IHEs in 

their proposed projects: ‘‘(Such as 

education and training programs offered 

by community colleges or other 

institutions of higher education . . .’’ 

Comment: One commenter identified 

a flaw in subpart (d) of proposed 

Priority 6. Specifically, the commenter 

noted that, as proposed, subpart (d) 

implies that all items listed after 

‘‘including’’ would be mandatory for 

applicants to incorporate into their 

proposed projects, but that an applicant 

could also disregard the list and propose 

to provide a different support, because 

the list concluded with ‘‘. . . or others 

as deemed appropriate.’’ 

The commenter noted a similar flaw 

in subpart (e) of proposed Priority 6, 

where we reference both personnel and 

service providers, but do not clearly 

explain whether we consider the two 

groups to be fundamentally different. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s thoughtful review and note 

that, in both cases, the lack of clarity 

was not intended. In subpart (d), it is 

not our intent to require applicants to 

propose projects that would provide 

support in all the areas noted, and on 

review of the proposed subpart (e), 

which is now subpart (f), we think it is 

unnecessary to include both personnel 

and service providers. We have 

modified subparts (d) and (f) to clarify 

Priority 6. 

Changes: In subpart (d), we have 

replaced ‘‘including’’ with ‘‘such as.’’ In 

subpart (f), we have removed 

‘‘personnel.’’ 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we include in proposed subpart (e), 

which is now subpart (f), instructors 

and students, in addition to service 

providers and customers, so that 

professional development could also be 

provided to teachers of career and 

technical education. 

Discussion: This subpart is intended 

for vocational rehabilitation agencies 

and other providers who serve adults 

who may not be enrolled in an 

educational institution or program. As 

such, we do not think that it is 

appropriate to include instructors and 

students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended a number of changes to 

Priority 6. They include defining the 

terms ‘‘employment outcomes,’’ ‘‘jobdriven training,’’ ‘‘non-degree 

postsecondary credentials,’’ and 

‘‘workforce and labor market 

information;’’ establishing new subparts 

focused on Labor Market Information, 

counseling, training for counselors, and 

increasing the capacity of education and 

training institutions to use Labor Market 

Information; specifying that the career 

pathways programs referenced in 

subpart (c) should lead to ‘‘a non-degree 

postsecondary credential;’’ and 

specifying that the purpose of providing 

the support services outlined in subpart 

(d) of Priority 6 is to ‘‘facilitate 

credential attainment, employability, 

and job tenure.’’ 

Discussion: We decline to add the 

new definitions recommended by the 

commenter because we do not think that 

they are necessary to implement Priority 

6. Most of the topics that the commenter 

recommended we include as subparts 

are already addressed adequately by the 

other subparts in Priority 6. We also do 

not agree with the commenter’s 

recommendation that career pathway 

programs be limited to pathways that 

lead to non-degree postsecondary 

credentials; instead, we think that 

pathways should lead to the full range 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73437 

of postsecondary credentials, including 

associate’s and baccalaureate degrees. 

Finally, we agree with the commenter’s 

proposed clarification of the purpose of 

providing the support services 

described in subpart (d) and have 

modified the subpart accordingly. 

Changes: We have added the phrase 

‘‘that facilitate credential attainment, 

employability, and job tenure’’ to the 

end of subpart (d). 

Priority 7—Promoting Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that STEM education is supported by 

philanthropy and business, rendering 

Federal support unnecessary, and 

recommended that we remove Priority 

7. 

Discussion: Efforts to improve STEM 

education are often supported by a 

diverse group of funders. However, the 

Supplemental Priorities reflect our 

policy agenda, which includes, among 

other things, a focus on preparing 

students to meet the current demands of 

the labor market and on preparing 

teachers to effectively teach STEM 

subjects. We think that projects 

designed to address the distinct 

subparts listed in Priority 7 will help to 

achieve these goals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we enhance Priority 7 by asking 

applicants to provide internships as part 

of their proposed projects. Another 

commenter requested that we highlight 

in Priority 7 the importance of 

partnerships with industry 

organizations. 

Discussion: We agree with both 

commenters and think that strategies 

similar to those described are already 

reflected in Priority 7. For example, an 

applicant could propose a project that 

included a focus on internships to 

address subparts (b), (c), (d), and (e) of 

Priority 7. We also note that an 

internship could be considered an 

Authentic STEM Experience. In 

addition, we note that local or regional 

partnerships are supported through 

subpart (e) of Priority 7. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters asked 

that we include in Priority 7 a focus on 

early indicators of STEM success. One 

commenter suggested we use Priority 7 

to focus on building research about 

early mathematics and science learning. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important to identify indicators of 

STEM success for children and 

students. In Priority 1—Improving Early 

Learning and Development Outcomes, 

projects designed to address any of the 

subparts must improve outcomes across 

at least one of the Essential Domains of 

School Readiness, which include early 

mathematics and early scientific 

development. Early childhood educators 

may also benefit from projects that 

address Priority 7, and to clarify that, 

we remove the reference in subpart (a) 

to teachers of career and technical 

education, which may have been 

viewed as limiting the scope of the 

priority. 

We appreciate the commenter’s 

request that we use Priority 7 as a 

mechanism to build the evidence base 

supporting early mathematics and 

science learning. As discussed 

elsewhere in this notice, the Department 

currently supports evidence-based 

funding through several provisions in 

EDGAR, most notably 34 CFR 75.590 

(Evaluation by the grantee). In addition, 

discretionary grant programs may use 

selection factors included in 34 CFR 

75.210(h) (Quality of the project 

evaluation), as appropriate, to encourage 

applicants to design evaluations of their 

projects that accurately reflect the 

research questions most relevant to the 

field. Because the Department has 

discretion in choosing the types of 

evidence-building activities that are 

most appropriate for particular 

discretionary grant programs, we do not 

think that it is necessary to include a 

requirement that applicants addressing 

Priority 7 build the research base in a 

specific policy area. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (a) 

of Priority 7 so that it now reads: 

‘‘Increasing the preparation of teachers 

or other educators in STEM subjects 

through activities that may include 

building content knowledge and 

pedagogical content knowledge, and 

increasing the number and quality of 

Authentic STEM Experiences.’’ 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

the term ‘‘teachers’’ be replaced with 

‘‘educators’’ in subpart (c) of Priority 7. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion, and note that, 

while teachers are not mentioned in 

subpart (c) of Priority 7, both teachers 

and educators are included in subpart 

(a). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

the addition of several subparts to 

highlight the role that afterschool and 

summer programs can play in 

promoting STEM education, 

encouraging joint professional 

development for community educators 

and teachers, and increasing 

partnerships between LEAs and 

afterschool and expanded learning 

programs. Another commenter 

suggested that we include a focus on 

public-private partnerships that would 

align STEM labor market demands with 

a supply of well-prepared STEM 

workers. 

Discussion: We agree with the first 

commenter and think that the areas of 

focus suggested are important; however, 

we do not think that it is appropriate to 

prescribe the specific types of programs, 

such as afterschool or summer 

programs, that should be supported 

through the Supplemental Priorities. We 

think that applicants are best-suited to 

propose projects that will meet the 

needs of the target populations they 

propose to serve, and those projects may 

include support for afterschool or 

summer programs. The main goal of the 

priority is to prepare students to meet 

the demands of the STEM labor market. 

Finally, we note that our reference in 

subpart (a) of Priority 7 to ‘‘other 

educators,’’ as well as our reference to 

Authentic STEM Experiences, allows 

applicants to propose projects that 

include a focus on joint professional 

development. To further bolster this 

concept, we revise subpart (b) of Priority 

7 to clarify that projects designed to 

provide students with increased access 

to STEM opportunities may be 

integrated across multiple settings. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

of Priority 7 so that it ends with the 

phrase: ‘‘. . . that may be integrated 

across multiple settings.’’ 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to include in Priority 7 a 

focus on arts education to improve 

students’ creative thinking skills. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion, and note that 

Priority 7 includes ways for projects to 

address creative thinking skills. For 

example, subpart (b) of Priority 7 could 

be used to support projects that provide 

students with increased access to 

Authentic STEM Experiences, which 

could be laboratory, research-based, or 

experiential learning opportunities in 

informal or formal settings. 

We also note that applicants could 

include a focus on arts education in a 

project designed to promote STEM 

education; and that elements of arts 

education can be particularly relevant to 

technology and engineering programs. 

In fact, we view arts education as a 

strategy that can touch several of the 

Supplemental Priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we include a new subpart in Priority 7 

that would support projects that engage 

parents and families in their children’s 

STEM education. 

Discussion: We agree that family 

engagement is important for student 

success in all subjects and reflect our 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73438 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

interest in supporting family 

engagement in Priority 14—Improving 

Parent, Family, and Community 

Engagement. As appropriate, we may 

combine elements of Priority 7 and 

Priority 14 to solicit applications that 

include both a focus on STEM and on 

family engagement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that subpart (d) of Priority 7, 

which would support projects that are 

intended to increase the number of 

individuals from groups that have been 

historically under-represented in STEM 

who are provided with rigorous STEM 

coursework and prepared for 

postsecondary study and careers in 

STEM, is unconstitutional. The 

commenter asserts that the Federal 

government cannot use classifications 

based on race, ethnicity, or gender in its 

efforts to support the improvement of 

student outcomes. 

Discussion: Subpart (d) of Priority 7 is 

designed to support investments in 

strategies that are most likely to increase 

access to rigorous STEM coursework, 

and preparation for postsecondary study 

and careers in STEM, for individuals 

from groups that have been historically 

under-represented in STEM fields. 

These individuals may include, but are 

not limited to, minorities, individuals 

with disabilities, and women. This 

priority does not encourage or require 

classifications based on race, ethnicity, 

or gender. Applicants may propose 

approaches that seek to increase 

participation by individuals from 

groups that have been historically 

under-represented and that serve all 

individuals. We further note that 

recipients of Department funding must 

comply with the nondiscrimination 

requirements of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX of 

the Education Amendments of 1972, 

and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. 

For more information on these 

requirements, and other guidance 

related to diversity, please visit the 

Department’s Office for Civil Rights 

(OCR) Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/ocr/index.html. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 8—Implementing 

Internationally Benchmarked Collegeand Career-Ready Standards and 

Assessments 

Comment: One commenter supported 

internationally benchmarked collegeand career-ready standards, but noted 

that many States are already of 

developing and implementing those 

standards. Thus, the commenter argued 

that it was not necessary for the Federal 

government to support this type of 

work. 

Discussion: Priority 8 is not focused 

on developing the standards themselves. 

Rather, this priority supports strategies 

for implementing college- and careerready standards effectively, and projects 

designed to address Priority 8 would not 

be conducted at the Federal level. 

Rather, the Department would use this 

priority to support State, local, or 

regional entities carrying out this work 

and those entities would propose 

strategies that are best-suited to the 

populations they propose to serve and 

the particular college- and career-ready 

standards and assessments that are 

being implemented. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the term ‘‘performancebased tool,’’ found in subpart (a) of 

Priority 8, is not a commonly 

understood term. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern. We think, 

however, that the text of subpart (a) 

provides the necessary context for the 

term ‘‘performance-based tool.’’ Our 

intent in this subpart is to broadly refer 

to performance-based tools, allowing 

applicants flexibility in developing and 

implementing the materials they need in 

order to effectively assess student 

progress. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we provide further incentives to States 

to broaden their accountability 

definitions and requirements to include 

a more comprehensive definition of 

student success. The commenter noted 

the importance of using multiple 

measures, formative assessments, nontest-based evidence of learning, and 

progress toward personal growth 

objectives. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

elements listed by the commenter can 

be important and useful measures of 

student success, and we include 

formative assessments in subpart (a) of 

Priority 8. While we do not mention the 

commenter’s other examples 

specifically in the subpart, we think that 

the phrase ‘‘performance-based tools’’ is 

broad and could encompass several 

types of measures. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise subpart (a) so that it is 

clear that the focus of student 

assessments should be to improve and 

inform instruction and learning. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that student assessments 

should be used to improve and inform 

instruction and learning, but we do not 

think that it is necessary to revise 

subpart (a) to require applicants to focus 

on those goals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters asked 

that we include in subpart (b) of Priority 

8 a focus on professional development 

for principals, as well as teachers. 

Discussion: We agree that supporting 

principals with professional 

development and training opportunities 

that are aligned with college- and 

career-ready standards is important, and 

have edited subpart (b) to reflect this 

goal. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

to read: ‘‘Developing and implementing 

teacher or principal professional 

development or preparation programs 

that are aligned with those standards.’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

several revisions to subparts (b) and (c) 

of Priority 8. The commenter suggested 

that we should encourage applicants to 

provide opportunities for deeper 

learning, improving content knowledge, 

communicating effectively, 

collaborating with peers, and 

participating in professional 

development that is self-directed. The 

commenter also asked that Priority 8 be 

revised to specifically support efforts to 

improve literacy instruction, and be 

tailored to meet the needs of middle and 

high school teachers. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestions and agree that 

the elements outlined by the commenter 

are important. However we do not think 

that it is appropriate in these priorities 

to prescribe specific strategies, content 

areas, or grades on which projects 

should focus, because we think that 

applicants are best-suited to propose 

projects that meet the needs of the target 

populations they propose to serve. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we require that new assessments 

developed by applicants or grant 

recipients be licensed with an 

intellectual property license that allows 

for unrestricted reuse and modification. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion, but we do not 

believe that it is appropriate to impose 

this license requirement unilaterally, 

because making some types of 

assessments so broadly available could 

have implications for academic 

integrity. The Department’s existing 

regulations relating to products 

produced with grant funds already 

provide that grantees may copyright 

intellectual property produced with 

Department grant funds per 34 CFR 

75.261 (Copyright policy for grantees). 

However, under 34 CFR 74.36 

(Intangible property) and 80.34 

(Copyrights), the Department retains a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73439 

8For grants awarded on or after the date on which 

the Department adopts and makes effective the 

Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200 (expected on 

December 26, 2014), 2 CFR 200.315(b) would 

preserve the Federal government’s license that 

exists under current §§ 74.36 and 80.34. 

non-exclusive and irrevocable license to 

reproduce, publish, or otherwise use 

those project materials for government 

purposes.8 This license gives the 

Department the authority we need to 

ensure that materials produced as part 

of Department-supported grant projects 

can be made available to the public. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we include a new subpart in Priority 8 

focused on developing equitable 

conditions and resources to support the 

implementation of standards and 

improve students’ academic skills and 

opportunities in a broad range of 

subjects and competencies, in order to 

prepare students for success in the 

globally interdependent world. 

Conversely, one commenter objected 

to our reference to internationally 

benchmarked standards and 

assessments, explaining that students 

should not be focused on comparing 

themselves to their peers in other 

nations, but rather on their own 

academic achievement. 

Discussion: We agree that students 

must be prepared for success in college, 

career, and life. We think that the 

proposed subparts could support a 

project designed to do what the 

commenter described, and also note that 

any project proposed to address Priority 

8 would need to be relevant to 

internationally benchmarked standards 

and assessments. We also note that 

Priority 12—Promoting Diversity already 

provides an opportunity for a focus on 

preparing students to be successful in 

the increasingly diverse workforce. 

Finally, we disagree with the 

commenter that students should not be 

prepared to be globally competitive and 

note that the Department’s mission is to 

promote Student Achievement and 

preparation for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and 

ensuring equal access. We think that 

projects designed to assess students 

against internationally benchmarked 

college- and career-ready standards will 

help to ensure those students are on 

track for future success in any context. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 9—Improving Teacher 

Effectiveness and Promoting Equitable 

Access to Effective Teachers 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for proposed Priority 9 and 

proposed Priority 10—Improving the 

Effectiveness of Principals, and 

suggested several instances where we 

could better differentiate supports for 

teachers and principals in other 

priorities and definitions proposed in 

the NPP. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion, and note 

resulting changes to Priority 1— 

Improving Early Learning and 

Development Outcomes. We thought 

clearer differentiation was appropriate 

in subpart (b) of Priority 1, which 

focuses on improving the knowledge, 

skills, and abilities of the early learning 

workforce because, we think that it is 

crucial for administrators to be wellversed in methods of improving young 

children’s health, social-emotional, and 

cognitive outcomes. However, we did 

not edit all the priorities suggested by 

the commenter, because we do not think 

that each priority identified by the 

commenter focused on a professional 

development or training need that is as 

meaningful for principals as it is for 

teachers. We also note that, in priorities 

in which we use the term ‘‘educator,’’ a 

project could be designed to support 

individuals, such as principals, who are 

not teachers. 

Changes: We have revised Priority 1 

to better reflect the needs of 

administrators and leaders. Further 

explanation of this change is included 

in relevant sections of this notice. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

general concern that the Department 

does not focus its efforts on encouraging 

teachers to be innovative, creative, and 

effective in the classroom. Another 

commenter stressed that we explicitly 

focus on balancing direct instruction 

with project-oriented methods, 

enhancing problem-solving through 

deep understanding of subject matter, 

improving critical thinking skills, and 

cultivating teachers’ recognition of 

student learning styles. 

Discussion: We agree that innovative, 

creative, and effective teachers are 

important to students’ academic 

success. For this reason, we have 

included Priority 9, which focuses in 

part on supporting teachers to be 

effective in the classroom. Particularly, 

we note that subpart (a)(i) of Priority 9 

focuses on preparing, recruiting, 

selecting, and developing teachers to be 

effective. We think that, to be effective, 

teachers also need to be innovative and 

creative. As such, a project designed to 

increase the number and percentage of 

effective teachers through the strategies 

outlined in subparts (a)(i) or (ii) of 

Priority 9 would likely support teachers 

to be innovative and creative. 

In addition, we thank the commenter 

who suggested several specific foci for 

this priority. We agree that the skills 

suggested by the commenter are 

relevant, but also think that these skills 

are captured in Priority 9. Priority 3— 

Promoting Personalized Learning, can 

support projects that help teachers 

customize their instructional 

approaches to meet the needs of 

individual students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

general support for the proposed 

priorities, but suggested that we also 

support projects that reduce class sizes, 

particularly in secondary schools, and 

that we support paid teacher internships 

for new teachers that mirror the training 

that medical doctors receive. 

Discussion: We think that there are 

several ways that our discretionary grant 

programs could use this priority to 

solicit projects that are designed to 

better prepare and support teachers, and 

to ensure that teachers have manageable 

workloads. In general, we do not wish 

to require applicants proposing projects 

under Priority 9 to support teachers 

through specific strategies. Rather, we 

think that applicants are generally best 

suited to propose specific strategies to 

support the target populations they 

propose to serve. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we expand proposed Priority 9 so that 

early learning providers could also 

benefit from the activities described in 

subparts (a) and (b). 

Discussion: We agree that early 

learning providers should receive 

support so that they can be effective in 

their careers. Priority 9 does not 

preclude early learning and 

development teachers from benefiting 

from projects supported under Priority 

9. 

Changes: None. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed support for Priority 9, but 

suggested that we include specific 

methods to support effective teachers. 

One commenter suggested that peer 

evaluations are helpful, and another 

stressed the importance of including 

strategies to support teachers to be 

effective in diverse classroom settings. 

In particular, the commenter asked that 

we encourage rural districts to 

implement ‘‘grow your own’’ strategies 

to improve teacher recruitment and 

retention. 

Another commenter suggested that we 

revise the language in subpart (a) of 

Priority 9 to stress the importance and 

difficulty of staffing Lowest-performing 

Schools. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for suggesting specific strategies to 

support the preparation, recruitment, 

development, and retention of effective 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73440 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

teachers, and agree that several 

strategies may be used to do this work 

successfully. We also agree that some 

strategies are better suited than others to 

effect positive change, depending on the 

needs of the community to be served by 

the proposed project. For these reasons, 

we do not want to limit the scope of 

Priority 9 by including or requiring the 

use of specific strategies. Rather, we 

expect applicants to propose 

appropriate strategies to increase the 

number and percentage of effective 

teachers in their schools and to promote 

equitable access to effective teachers. 

We also agree with the commenter 

that rural schools, in addition to schools 

with high concentrations of students 

from low-income families and minority 

students, should be staffed by effective 

teachers. For this reason, we have 

revised Priority 9 to explicitly include 

‘‘schools in Rural Local Educational 

Agencies.’’ 

Finally, we agree that teachers 

working in Lowest-performing Schools, 

schools in Rural LEAs, and schools with 

high concentrations of students from 

low-income families and minority 

students may face unique challenges. 

We therefore have added language to 

subpart (a) of Priority 9 to better support 

projects that will increase the number 

and percentage of effective teachers in 

schools where they are most needed. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (a) of 

Priority 9 so that it now reads: 

‘‘Increasing the number and percentage 

of effective teachers in Lowestperforming Schools, schools in Rural 

Local Educational Agencies, or schools 

with high concentrations of students 

from low-income families and minority 

students . . .’’ We have made a 

corresponding change to subpart (a) of 

Priority 10—Improving the Effectiveness 

of Principals. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we separate the concept of 

improving workplace conditions from 

subpart (a)(ii) because that strategy 

could not only improve the retention of 

effective teachers, but also increase 

successful teaching and learning. The 

commenter also noted the importance of 

tailoring professional development to 

meet the needs of new teachers, because 

they are typically assigned to 

classrooms and schools with greater 

needs, and suggested that we emphasize 

comprehensive teacher induction as an 

effective strategy for supporting those 

teachers. Another commenter suggested 

including, in subpart (a)(ii), a focus on 

relevant, effective, and outcomeoriented professional development to 

support teachers who work in 

challenging environments. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that improving workplace 

conditions would not only improve 

retention of effective teachers, but also 

would support environments in which 

teachers and students can be successful. 

We note that subpart (a)(ii) of Priority 9 

includes a focus on both retention and 

on creating opportunities for successful 

teaching and learning. For this priority, 

our focus is to support projects that are 

designed to retain effective teachers, 

and through such strategies as 

improving workplace conditions, 

improve outcomes for teachers and 

students. 

We also agree with the commenter 

that teachers need differentiated support 

depending on the amount of time they 

have spent in the classroom. We think 

that, in order to implement the 

strategies outlined in subpart (a)(ii) 

well, an applicant would need to 

customize its approach to meet the 

needs of teachers in different stages of 

their careers. We also note that, in 

subpart (a)(i), we include a focus on 

early career teacher development. We 

therefore do not think it is necessary to 

edit Priority 9 to meet the needs of early 

career teachers. 

We think that teachers working in 

Lowest-performing Schools, schools in 

Rural LEAs, and schools with high 

concentrations of students from lowincome families and minority students 

may need differentiated support in 

order to be effective. We have changed 

subpart (a)(ii) of Priority 9 to more 

clearly communicate the expectations of 

the professional development to be 

delivered to teachers in these schools. 

Changes: We have revised subpart 

(a)(ii) of Priority 9 so that it now reads: 

‘‘Improving the retention of effective 

teachers through such activities as 

creating or enhancing opportunities for 

teachers’ professional growth; delivering 

professional development to teachers 

that is relevant, effective, and outcomeoriented; reforming compensation and 

advancement systems; and improving 

workplace conditions to create 

opportunities for successful teaching 

and learning.’’ 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we revise subpart (b) of proposed 

Priority 9 so that children with 

disabilities, in addition to students from 

low-income families and minority 

students, could benefit from projects 

designed to encourage equitable access 

to effective teachers. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern, and note that this 

subpart is intended to help SEAs and 

LEAs comply with requirements in 34 

CFR 200.57(a)(2)(iii)(A) and (b)(2) that 

are designed to ensure that students 

from low-income families and minority 

students are not taught at higher rates 

than other students by inexperienced, 

out-of-field, or unqualified teachers. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we revise proposed Priority 9 to include 

a preference for nonprofit organizations 

that provide afterschool and extended 

learning programs, as well as nonprofit 

organizations that provide alternative 

routes to teacher certification. 

Discussion: We agree that nonprofit 

organizations can play key roles in 

supporting and retaining effective 

teachers, and in providing students 

equitable access to effective teachers. 

Many, but not all, of our discretionary 

grant programs consider nonprofit 

organizations to be eligible to apply for 

funding. Because Priority 9 does not 

preclude nonprofit organizations and 

we do not want to revise the priority in 

a manner that would restrict the use of 

the priority by discretionary grant 

programs, we do not think that Priority 

9 should be revised to specify their 

participation in projects to support 

effective teachers or to promote 

equitable access to effective teachers. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

we refer to ‘‘low-income students’’ in 

Priority 9, but to ‘‘students from lowincome families’’ in other priorities and 

definitions in the NPP. 

Discussion: The use of two different 

phrases was unintentional and we thank 

the commenter for pointing out the 

discrepancy. We have revised this 

priority to ensure that we refer only to 

‘‘students from low-income families.’’ 

Changes: In Priority 9, we have 

changed ‘‘low-income students’’ to 

‘‘students from low-income families.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stressed 

the importance of understanding social 

and emotional competencies, and asked 

that we include in Priority 9 and Priority 

10—Improving the Effectiveness of 

Principals projects that would support 

teacher and principal understanding of 

these competencies. 

Discussion: While we agree that 

teachers and principals should fully 

understand the social and emotional 

needs of students at all grade levels, we 

do not think that changes to Priorities 9 

or 10 are necessary to reflect this 

concept. 

First, we include Priority 2— 

Influencing the Development of NonCognitive Factors. The inclusion of this 

priority represents a focus of the 

Department on improving students’ 

mastery of skills and behaviors, such as 

perseverance, self-regulation, and social 

and emotional skills. Second, Priority 

1—Improving Early Learning and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73441 

Development Outcomes supports 

projects that improve outcomes for early 

learners across one or more of the 

Essential Domains of School Readiness, 

which include, among other things, 

social and emotional development. For 

these reasons, we do not think that edits 

to Priorities 9 or 10 are necessary in 

response to this comment. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 10—Improving the 

Effectiveness of Principals 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we highlight the importance of 

preparing principals to be effective in 

leading rural schools. 

Discussion: We agree that principals 

face unique challenges in rural schools, 

much like teachers in those schools. We 

think it is important to include an 

explicit focus on schools in Rural LEAs 

and to augment the priority to reflect 

this. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (a) 

of Priority 10 to support principals in 

schools in Rural LEAs. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we use Priority 10 to support 

projects that would retain talented 

individuals to lead schools, in addition 

to recruiting, selecting, preparing, and 

supporting those individuals. 

Discussion: We agree that retaining 

effective principals in schools where 

they are needed most is an important 

way to significantly improve 

instruction. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (e) 

of Priority 10 so that it now reads: 

‘‘Implementing practices or strategies 

that support districts in hiring, 

evaluating, supporting, and retaining 

principals who effectively lead 

schools.’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we include a focus on district 

conditions, in addition to school 

conditions, in subpart (b) of proposed 

Priority 10, which seeks projects that 

identify, implement, and support 

policies and conditions to turn around 

Lowest-performing Schools. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter, and now include a focus on 

district conditions in subpart (b) of 

Priority 10. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

of Priority 10 so that it now reads: 

‘‘Identifying, implementing, and 

supporting policies and school and 

district conditions that facilitate efforts 

by principals to turn around Lowestperforming Schools.’’ 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we include foci on boards of education 

and superintendents, in addition to 

principals, in proposed Priority 10. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

that early learning education leaders 

would not be included in projects 

designed under this priority; and a third 

commenter asked us to extend our focus 

on aligning principal preparation 

programs to college- and career-ready 

standards so that the coursework begins 

with subject matter for children at birth, 

rather than at pre-kindergarten. A fourth 

commenter suggested that we revise 

subpart (e) of Priority 10 to promote the 

creation of leadership pipelines and to 

include teacher leaders, assistant 

principals, and principal supervisors in 

the subpart. 

Discussion: We think that support of 

superintendents, boards of education, 

principal supervisors, and other district 

leaders is an integral component of 

strategies to effectively prepare and 

support principals to lead schools. For 

this reason, we include subpart (e) of 

Priority 10, which incentivizes projects 

designed to support districts in hiring, 

evaluating, and supporting principals. 

We agree with the commenter that 

early learning leaders should also be 

prepared and supported so they can be 

effective in the schools or programs they 

lead. We include in subpart (c) of 

Priority 10 an emphasis on aligning 

principal preparation programs with 

pre-K through grade 12 college- andcareer ready standards. We do not think 

that it is appropriate to extend this focus 

to encompass college- and career-ready 

standards for children who are not yet 

three years old, because those standards 

are not in place in most States. We note, 

however, that we have made some 

changes to Priority 1—Improving Early 

Learning and Development Outcomes to 

more explicitly reference early learning 

and development program 

administrators. We think that the 

changes in Priority 1 will allow for more 

flexibility in terms of the supports 

available to program administrators. 

Finally, we also agree that creating 

pathways for teachers to move into 

leadership roles can be an effective way 

to encourage continued professional 

learning and growth for teachers. In 

general, we think that projects designed 

to meet subparts (a), (c), and (e) of 

Priority 10, as well as subpart (a)(ii) of 

Priority 9—Improving Teacher 

Effectiveness and Promoting Equitable 

Access to Effective Teachers, could 

focus on leadership pipelines or career 

pathways for teacher leaders and 

assistant principals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we encourage improvement in 

principal preparation and licensure 

through subpart (c) of Priority 10, which 

supports the creation and expansion of 

principal preparation programs. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for the suggestion, but note that 

principal licensure is handled largely by 

State agencies. Although some of the 

Department’s discretionary grant 

programs include SEAs as eligible 

applicants, many do not. As such, 

licensure is not an activity that could be 

conducted by most applicants. We do 

not want to revise the priority in a 

manner that might limit its use. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stressed 

the importance of ensuring that 

principals are well-versed in early 

learning curricula so that they are able 

to effectively lead instruction in that 

area, and so that they are able to 

appropriately evaluate teachers at 

various grade levels. 

Discussion: We agree that principals 

must fully understand the curricula 

being taught by the teachers they lead, 

and that many principals oversee early 

learning and development programs in 

addition to elementary or secondary 

education programs. We note that 

Priority 10 includes a focus in subpart 

(c) on aligning principal preparation 

programs with pre-kindergarten through 

grade 12 college- and career-ready 

standards. We also think that projects 

that are designed to meet subpart (d) of 

Priority 10, which focuses on 

supporting principals in their mastery of 

instructional and organizational 

leadership skills, could include 

strategies to ensure that principals 

understand the unique needs of 

preschool teachers and other early 

learning and development providers. 

Further, we include mechanisms in 

Priority 1—Improving Early Learning 

and Development Outcomes to support 

educators and administrators to improve 

young children’s health, socialemotional, and cognitive outcomes. 

Because these priorities provide 

multiple options for bolstering 

principals’ understanding of early 

learning curricula, we do not think 

revisions are necessary to address the 

commenter’s concern. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for proposed Priority 10, but 

encouraged us to further strengthen 

subpart (d) by including specific 

leadership skills, such as developing 

and managing talent and creating a 

strong organizational culture focused on 

high expectations for student and 

teacher performance. Another 

commenter suggested several edits 

throughout Priority 10 to highlight 

additional important skills that 

principals must master, including 

accessing and using data to make 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73442 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

decisions and improving the learning 

environment in addition to instruction. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for suggesting specific skills to 

prioritize. In general, we do not think 

that it is appropriate, through this NFP, 

to dictate specific strategies, methods, or 

activities beyond the broad areas of 

focus outlined in each priority. We 

think that applicants are generally bestsuited to choose approaches that are 

most appropriate in their particular 

contexts. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 11—Leveraging Technology To 

Support Instructional Practice and 

Professional Development 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

the benefits of education technology and 

expressed support for proposed Priority 

11. Several of these commenters also 

provided suggestions for expanding the 

reach of the proposed priority. Two 

commenters suggested that the 

Department expand subpart (c) to 

support projects that offer a broader 

range of activities by including school 

leaders and technology leaders in 

addition to educators as staff that could 

earn professional development credit, 

certification, or continuing education 

and supporting online networks for peer 

collaboration or mentorship. One 

commenter also suggested adding a 

focus on teacher preparation 

coursework to build new teachers’ 

capacity to engage in learning 

environments and use digital tools. 

Similarly, another commenter 

recommended adding professional 

development for educators on how to 

effectively use digital resources and 

student data. One commenter 

encouraged the Department to consider 

content and pedagogy as necessary 

elements to inform the development of 

high-quality digital materials, and 

another commenter suggested adding a 

subpart for projects that use technology 

to restructure the traditional 

pedagogical model to overcome 

traditional time, space, and fiscal 

constraints. 

One commenter requested that the 

Department include a focus on schooland district-level activities, including 

the development and implementation of 

comprehensive plans for technology 

integration and data privacy policies. 

Another commenter suggested that 

research and evaluation be included as 

a required activity under the proposed 

priority. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendations and note 

that many of the suggestions are covered 

under subpart (c) of Priority 11. For 

example, we think that ‘‘educators’’, as 

it appears in subpart (c), is a broad 

enough term to encompass school 

leaders, in addition to teachers. We also 

think that professional development on 

the use of digital resources, the use of 

student data, and privacy policies 

would be appropriate elements of a 

project that addresses subpart (c) of 

Priority 11. In general, we do not think 

that it is appropriate to prescribe the 

specific topic of the professional 

development, because applicants are 

best suited to identify the needs of the 

teachers and leaders they propose to 

serve. The purpose of this priority is for 

applicants to leverage the use of 

technology in supporting instructional 

practices and professional development; 

we do not intend to restrict the topics 

of the instructional practice or 

professional development. Further, we 

do not think that it is necessary to revise 

the priority to include a subpart for 

projects that use technology to 

restructure the traditional pedagogical 

model to overcome traditional time, 

space, and fiscal constraints because 

those projects may be supported under 

Priority 3—Promoting Personalized 

Learning. 

We decline to list or prescribe specific 

types of learning communities. As 

proposed, we think that learning 

communities would allow for online 

networks for peer collaboration. 

However, we change ‘‘including’’ to 

‘‘such as’’ in subpart (c) to clarify that 

projects addressing the priority may 

include online learning communities 

that do not result in awarding 

professional development or continuous 

learning units. 

We agree with the commenter that 

applicants addressing this priority will 

benefit from the development and 

implementation of comprehensive plans 

for technology integration and data 

privacy policies. However, given the 

variety of programs and entities that 

may use or address this priority, we do 

not think that it is appropriate to 

include those requirements in Priority 

11. We also note that recipients of 

Department funding are required to 

protect the privacy of student data. 

Additionally, a program using this 

priority could use factors from 34 CFR 

75.210(c) (Quality of the project design) 

or 34 CFR 75.210(h) (Quality of the 

project evaluation) to encourage 

applicants to address their planning and 

sustainability needs, as well as their 

proposed project evaluations, as part of 

their proposed projects. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that proposed Priority 11 

include language highlighting the value 

of technology in supporting improved 

outcomes for young children and their 

families. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that technology can enhance 

the implementation of early learning 

projects and efforts to more effectively 

engage parents. In fact, we discussed the 

opportunities to leverage this priority 

with Priority 1—Improving Early 

Learning and Development Outcomes 

and Priority 14—Improving Parent, 

Family, and Community Engagement in 

the background provided in the NPP. 

We include the priority on leveraging 

technology as a separate priority so that 

discretionary grant programs have the 

flexibility to use the priority alone or in 

combination with other priorities. 

We decline to revise the priority in a 

manner that would limit the types of 

students that could be served by 

projects that address the priority. As 

proposed, Priority 11 does not preclude 

projects with a focus on early learning 

or early grades. However, we have 

revised subpart (a) of Priority 14— 

Improving Parent, Family, and 

Community Engagement to include an 

explicit reference to technological tools 

as a means to expand and enhance the 

skill, strategies, and knowledge of 

parents and families. 

Changes: In subpart (a) of Priority 14, 

we have revised the parenthetical list so 

that it now begins with: ‘‘including 

techniques or use of technological tools 

. . .’’ 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the proposed priority be 

revised to require projects supported 

under it to be based on the principles of 

UDL. 

Discussion: Although UDL is not 

explicitly discussed in Priority 11, an 

applicant could propose to develop and 

implement high-quality accessible 

digital tools, materials, and assessments 

that are based on UDL principles in 

response to subpart (b). Moreover, the 

priority, as proposed, does not preclude 

an applicant from using the approach or 

principle it determines to be most 

suitable for its project. We therefore 

decline to revise the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the use of ‘‘particularly’’ in subpart (a), 

with respect to open educational 

resources, and ‘‘including’’ in subpart 

(c), with respect to certain types of 

online courses, learning communities, 

and simulations, may be too restrictive. 

Discussion: The Department strongly 

encourages the use of Open Educational 

Resources (OER) and online courses, 

learning communities, or simulations 

that award professional development 

credit or continuing education units, but 

did not intend to restrict subparts (a) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73443 

9For grants awarded on or after the date on which 

the Department adopts and makes effective the 

Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200 (expected on 

December 26, 2014), 2 CFR 200.315(b) would 

preserve the Federal government’s license that 

exists under current §§ 74.36 and 80.34. 

and (c) so that only those projects could 

apply. We agree with the commenter 

that the use of ‘‘including’’ in subpart 

(c) may be too restrictive and we have 

revised the subpart to better reflect our 

intent. However, we do not think that 

the use of ‘‘particularly’’ in subpart (a) 

is too restrictive, because it 

appropriately reflects the Department’s 

interest in promoting the development 

and use of OER. 

Further, in our review of Priority 11, 

we concluded that subpart (a) could be 

better organized to ensure the clarity of 

our intent regarding OER. We have also 

revised subpart (c) to clarify that we 

intend the courses, learning 

communities, and simulations that are 

supported by projects under this 

priority to be high-quality, accessible, 

and online. 

In addition, on reconsideration of 

Priority 11, we noticed that the phrasing 

of subparts (b) and (c) was 

unintentionally restrictive and would 

require applicants to both develop and 

implement the elements described in 

each subpart. We think that there are 

cases in which an applicant that may 

want to implement an alreadydeveloped product, but would be 

precluded from doing so by the 

proposed subpart language. As such, we 

have revised subparts (b) and (c) of 

Priority 11 to require that applicants 

only implement, with the clear 

understanding that some applicants may 

also develop, the products they propose 

to implement, as appropriate. 

Changes: We have revised subparts 

(a), (b), and (c) of Priority 11 so that they 

now read: 

(a) Using high-speed Internet access 

and devices to increase students’ and 

educators’ access to high-quality 

accessible digital tools, assessments, 

and materials, particularly Open 

Educational Resources. 

(b) Implementing high-quality 

accessible digital tools, assessments, 

and materials that are aligned to 

rigorous college- and career-ready 

standards. 

(c) Implementing high-quality, 

accessible online courses, online 

learning communities, or online 

simulations, such as those for which 

educators could earn professional 

development credit or continuing 

education units through Digital 

Credentials based on demonstrated 

mastery of competencies and 

performance-based outcomes, instead of 

traditional time-based metrics. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

the Department to clarify in subpart (d) 

that data platforms can also be used to 

inform and improve learning outcomes. 

Discussion: We agree that producing 

evidence on teaching and learning is not 

the sole purpose of data platforms, and 

also agree that the focus of subpart (d) 

should be to inform and improve 

learning outcomes. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (d) 

so that it now reads: ‘‘Using data 

platforms that enable the development, 

visualization, and rapid analysis of data 

to inform and improve learning 

outcomes, while also protecting privacy 

in accordance with applicable laws.’’ 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

strong support for Priority 11, but stated 

that an applicant addressing subpart (a) 

alone should not be recognized as 

meeting the goal of the priority. 

Conversely, another commenter said 

that most schools are behind the 

technology curve and lack resources for 

the infrastructure, hardware, software, 

and professional development that are 

necessary for educators to incorporate 

technology into the classroom. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concern. However, we note 

that, for some schools, projects designed 

to meet subpart (a) of Priority 11 could 

represent the first step in leveraging 

technology. Data provided to the 

Federal Communications Commission 

through the ConnectED initiative show 

a significant need for the types of 

projects that would be funded under 

subpart (a). Without access to highspeed Internet and devices, students 

and educators also do not have access 

to digital tools and materials in the 

classroom. 

We also note that the Department 

considers a program’s authorizing 

statute and the types of entities that are 

eligible to apply when determining 

whether it is appropriate to select and 

use a given priority. The Department 

will not use a priority for a program if 

it determined that the use of that 

priority is inconsistent with the 

program’s purpose or would not result 

in meaningful projects. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed support for the Department’s 

reference to, and definition of, OER. 

Two commenters stated that open 

licensing of publicly funded educational 

resources should be made a requirement 

in all Department programs. One 

commenter noted that OER can be used 

to effectively address many of the other 

proposed priorities, including proposed 

Priorities 3, 4, 5, and 7. 

On the other hand, one commenter 

expressed concern about the 

Department giving preference to entities 

that provide OER, stating that one size 

does not fit all and that those entities 

may not understand the teaching and 

learning experience. The commenter 

requested that the Department let the 

market decide which tools are 

successful. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for their support of the OER definition. 

Although we encourage OER, its 

inclusion in these priorities does not 

require grant recipients to produce or 

use OER. Therefore, we do not agree 

with the commenter who suggested that 

our inclusion of OER would impede the 

market or result in entities selecting and 

using tools that are not appropriate for 

their particular teaching and learning 

experiences. 

It should be noted that the 

Department has regulations related to 

products produced with grant funds. 

Specifically, under 34 CFR 75.621 

(Copyright policy for grantees), grantees 

may copyright intellectual property that 

they produce with Department grant 

funds. However, under 34 CFR 74.36 

(Intangible property) and 80.34 

(Copyrights), the Department retains a 

non-exclusive and irrevocable license to 

reproduce, publish, or otherwise use 

those project materials for government 

purposes.9 This license gives the 

Department the authority needed to 

ensure that materials produced as part 

of Department grant projects can be 

made available to the public. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted the 

importance of live-online proctoring 

and recommended that the Department 

require authentication procedures that 

ensure the integrity of online education. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important to have methods in place to 

support the integrity and credibility of 

online education programs. However, 

given the variety of applicants and 

discretionary grant programs that may 

use this priority, we do not think that 

it is appropriate to prescribe those 

methods as part of Priority 11. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

technology does not, in and of itself, 

improve instruction or learning, as it is 

only a tool used by educators and 

students. The commenter questioned 

whether this priority should be 

included. 

Discussion: Although we agree that 

technology access alone may not 

improve instruction or learning, when 

used effectively, technology has the 

potential to engage students, empower 

teachers, and connect them to each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73444 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

10Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/ 

list/ocr/letters/colleague-201111.html and 

www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/new-guidancesupports-voluntary-use-race-achieve-diversityhigher-education. 

11Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/ 

list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405-schuetteguidance.pdf. 

other and to some of the best resources 

the world has to offer. These results do 

have the power to improve instruction 

and learning and, for that reason, we 

include this priority to support projects 

that would leverage technology. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 12—Promoting Diversity 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

general support for Priority 12 and 

suggested that we integrate the priority 

into the other 14 priorities. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

and agree that increasing diversity is an 

important strategy to prepare students to 

be successful in an increasingly diverse 

workforce. We note that programs have 

the flexibility to use several of these 

priorities in a single competition, as 

appropriate. The Department has 

discretion in choosing which priorities 

they use in a competition in any given 

year, and those decisions must be made 

with the program’s statutory 

requirements in mind. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that we are encouraging the 

selection and assignment of students 

based on race and ethnicity in proposed 

Priority 12. The commenter also 

indicated that the focus of the 

Department’s 2011 and 2013 guidance 

on diversity (which was created in 

cooperation with the Department of 

Justice (DOJ)) is misplaced, and that we 

should not encourage schools to adopt 

diversity policies. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern, and note that we 

do not intend for this priority to be used 

to support projects that select and assign 

students based solely on race; nor are 

we requiring schools to adopt particular 

diversity policies. Rather, our intent for 

this priority is to promote strategies that 

prepare students to be successful in the 

increasingly diverse workforce. We 

currently support projects that would 

increase racial, ethnic, and 

socioeconomic diversity in schools and 

postsecondary programs; as well as 

projects that would decrease racial, 

ethnic, and socioeconomic isolation of 

students in preschool, elementary, or 

secondary programs, as appropriate. We 

intend to use this priority only in 

discretionary grant programs for which 

it is useful, relevant, and allowable 

under the program’s authorizing statute. 

We also note that the Department’s 

2011 and 2013 guidance 10 on diversity 

was reaffirmed by guidance issued in 

2014 11 by both the Department and DOJ 

and is consistent with Supreme Court 

decisions. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the changes made to 

Priority 12 from the 2010 Supplemental 

Priorities, namely the inclusion of 

socioeconomic diversity, may lead 

applicants to avoid increasing racial and 

ethnic diversity. The commenter was 

also concerned that proposed Priority 12 

is no longer aligned with the 2011 and 

2013 joint guidance issued by the 

Department and DOJ. The commenter 

also noted that the 2010 version of the 

priority was rarely used in discretionary 

grant competitions, and asked that we 

ensure greater use of the proposed 

priority in the future. 

Another commenter asked that we 

revise proposed Priority 12 so that 

applicants have greater flexibility to 

interpret ‘‘diversity’’ in terms of the 

specific needs of their communities; and 

a third commenter asked that we 

include in Priority 12 a focus on 

disability diversity. 

Discussion: We agree that increasing 

racial and ethnic diversity is important 

for preparing students for success in an 

increasingly diverse workforce, and also 

acknowledge that the 2010 version of 

this priority was not widely used in the 

Department’s discretionary grant 

programs. We therefore sought input 

from stakeholders on how to better 

frame the priority so that it could be 

used more broadly. We learned that 

including a focus on socioeconomic 

diversity, in addition to racial and 

ethnic diversity, may facilitate the use 

of the priority in more discretionary 

grant programs, and may have the 

corollary effect of also increasing racial 

and ethnic diversity in schools and 

postsecondary programs. Thus, we think 

that including socioeconomic diversity 

in Priority 12 may encourage broader 

use of the priority across our 

discretionary grant programs while 

maintaining the original focus on 

increasing racial and ethnic diversity. 

We note, however, that we have 

discretion in choosing which priorities 

to use in a competition in any given 

year, and that those decisions must be 

made in accordance with the program’s 

authorizing statute. 

We do not think that revising the 

priority so that ‘‘diversity’’ could be 

interpreted with the flexibility proposed 

by the commenter is appropriate. We 

think that the focus of the priority 

should be on increasing racial, ethnic, 

and socioeconomic diversity. Moreover, 

we do not think it is appropriate to add 

disability diversity to Priority 12, and 

note that we do include a mechanism to 

otherwise support students with 

disabilities through Priority 4— 

Supporting High-Need Students. 

Priority 12 is fully consistent with the 

guidance on diversity issued by the 

Department and DOJ in 2011 and 2013. 

We also note that all recipients of 

Department funds must comply with the 

nondiscrimination requirements of Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, and the Age 

Discrimination Act of 1975. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

Priority 12, and suggested additional 

edits to further strengthen the priority. 

For example, the commenter thought 

that the priority should be structured so 

that applicants would need to decrease 

racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic 

isolation of students in preschool, 

elementary, or secondary programs, 

rather than choose one area of focus 

among the three. The commenter also 

suggested that we revise the priority so 

that increasing diversity and decreasing 

racial isolation would need to be a focus 

of any project under the priority, 

regardless of that project’s focus on 

preschool, elementary, secondary, or 

postsecondary institutions. Finally, the 

commenter asked that we expand the 

priority to support projects that would 

maintain diversity in already diverse 

districts that may be experiencing 

demographic shifts. 

Discussion: While we agree that 

increasing socioeconomic diversity may 

also be an effective strategy for 

increasing racial and ethnic diversity, 

we do not think that it is appropriate to 

require that applicants proposing 

projects under this priority include 

strategies for increasing all three types 

of diversity. We intend for Priority 12 to 

facilitate its broader use in our 

discretionary grant programs, so we do 

not wish to impose further requirements 

on applicants. 

Similarly, we think that preschool 

and elementary and secondary schools 

face particular issues of racial, ethnic, 

and socioeconomic isolation. In an 

effort to focus the Department’s 

investments in this respect on the areas 

in most need, we have not edited the 

priority to include a focus on decreasing 

racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic 

isolation in postsecondary programs. 

We agree with the commenter that 

school districts that are already diverse 

may need support to maintain their 

diversity in the midst of shifting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73445 

demographics. However, we do not 

think that Priority 12 would preclude 

such a project. We think that an 

applicant proposing a project of this 

nature could do so in the context of 

decreasing racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic isolation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

general support for proposed Priority 

12, and suggested that we extend the 

reach of the priority so that increasing 

racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic 

diversity could be a mechanism for 

increasing secondary and postsecondary 

completion rates, in addition to 

increasing enrollment. 

Discussion: While we agree with the 

commenter that completion of 

secondary and postsecondary programs 

is an important area, we do not think 

that Priority 12 is the appropriate place 

for such a focus. Our intent for Priority 

12 is to facilitate a broader focus on 

diversity in our discretionary grant 

programs, so we do not wish to impose 

further limitations on applicants. In 

addition, we note that Priority 5— 

Increasing Postsecondary Access, 

Affordability, and Completion includes 

two subparts focused on completion of 

college, other postsecondary programs, 

or other career and technical education. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we include a focus on supporting 

the diversity of the teaching workforce. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that exposing students to 

teachers from a variety of backgrounds 

may be an effective way to prepare 

students for a diverse world of work. 

However, we do not think that it is 

appropriate to expand the areas of focus 

in Priority 12. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon review, we 

recognized that the language of Priority 

12 did not clearly reflect our intention 

that the increase in diversity needs to 

occur at the school or program level in 

order to address the priority. We have 

made that clarification. 

Changes: We have revised Priority 12 

so that it now refers to ‘‘individual 

schools or postsecondary programs.’’ 

Priority 13—Improving School Climate, 

Behavioral Supports, and Correctional 

Education 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for Priority 13, but suggested 

that we expand it to recognize the 

causal connection that links poor 

instruction to inappropriate student 

behavior. 

Discussion: The commenter’s 

hypothesis is reasonable and a project 

focused on improving instruction to 

improve student behavior could fall 

under subpart (a) of Priority 13, which 

supports projects that improve school 

climate through strategies that may 

include Tiered Behavioral Supports. 

Moreover, we note that the definition of 

Tiered Behavioral Supports refers to 

evidence-based supports and data-based 

strategies. Thus, a strategy that is based 

on a causal connection to student 

behavior could be appropriate under 

this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we include in Priority 13 a focus on 

youth mentoring as an effective strategy 

for improving school climate. Two 

commenters suggested that we focus 

specifically on increasing student 

engagement and connectedness. 

Another commenter asked that we 

highlight arts programs, citing examples 

of how they have been shown to 

improve school climate. 

In addition, a few commenters 

suggested that we include subparts with 

a wider range of strategies under 

Priority 13. One commenter suggested 

that we include a subpart for projects 

that are designed to improve student 

outcomes through school-based health 

clinics and social services, and another 

asked that we include support for 

school-based addiction treatment. A 

third commenter urged the Department 

to incentivize learning environments 

that provide real-world experience 

through project-based or other applied 

work. 

Discussion: We agree that each of the 

strategies suggested by commenters may 

be effective in improving school 

climate. In general, we do not think that 

it is appropriate to include specific 

strategies in this priority because we do 

not want to limit those that applicants 

could propose to use in their projects. 

As noted elsewhere, we think that 

applicants are best-suited to propose 

appropriate strategies for improving 

school climate, behavioral supports, and 

correctional education, with their target 

populations in mind. 

We also note that our definition of 

Tiered Behavioral Supports now 

includes a reference to external 

partners, which may provide some 

flexibility under subpart (a) of Priority 

13 for applicants that propose the 

strategies described by the commenters. 

We make this change in order to 

recognize the unique supports that these 

partners can offer and note that the 

rationale for this change to the 

definition of Tiered Behavioral Supports 

is set out later in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section of this 

document. 

Finally, regarding the suggestion we 

address learning environments under 

this priority, we note that Priority 7— 

Promoting Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Education includes a focus on 

Authentic STEM Experiences, which 

can be laboratory, research-based, or 

experiential learning opportunities in 

informal or formal settings. We think 

that this provision in Priority 7 would 

allow for project-based and other 

applied work strategies. Because those 

learning environments are supported in 

Priority 7, we do not think it is 

necessary to revise this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters noted 

the important role external partners, 

particularly organizations that provide 

afterschool and extended learning 

programs, can play in improving school 

climate. 

Discussion: We agree that 

coordination between LEAs and 

external partners can be an effective 

strategy for improving school climate. 

We note, however, that these 

partnerships are often eligible 

applicants, in their own right, under our 

discretionary grant programs. It is not 

necessary to include language that 

specifically allows for partnerships with 

community organizations that provide 

afterschool, extended learning, or other 

relevant programs, because the priority 

does not preclude those partnerships 

from participating in this work. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we include language in Priority 13 

to allow for children in early learning 

and development programs to benefit 

from projects addressing this priority. 

Discussion: We think that applicants 

proposing to serve young children could 

address Priority 13. We also note that 

we include in Priority 1—Improving 

Early Learning and Development 

Outcomes a clear focus on improving 

outcomes across the Essential Domains 

of School Readiness, which includes 

social and emotional development. 

Projects that are designed to improve 

such development in young children 

could likely do so through strategies 

that are similar to those described in 

Priority 13. We decline to revise Priority 

13 in a manner that would set clear agegroup parameters because we think that 

it could limit the use of the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stressed 

that we should include in Priority 13 

strategies that use family engagement as 

a mechanism for improving student 

behavior and strengthening student 

social, emotional, and behavioral skills. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73446 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

12Available at: http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/ 

CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf. 

13Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/ 

list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi-sp.pdf. (See 

Footnote 7) 

Discussion: We agree that engaging 

parents and families in their students’ 

education is important, which is why 

we include Priority 14—Improving 

Parent, Family, and Community 

Engagement. As noted elsewhere, these 

priorities are intended as a menu of 

options from which we may choose in 

administering our discretionary grant 

programs. We may choose which, if any, 

of the priorities or subparts are 

appropriate for competitions under 

those programs. Thus, we may combine 

elements of Priority 14 with elements of 

Priority 13 in one competition, if 

appropriate and relevant to that 

program’s goals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for subpart (b) of Priority 13, 

which supports projects that reduce or 

eliminate school discipline disparities 

between student subgroups, reduce or 

eliminate the use of exclusionary 

discipline, and address the causes of 

those disparities. The commenter 

suggested that we add to subpart (b) an 

additional activity that would require 

applicants to also promote disciplinary 

practices that are alternatives to 

exclusionary discipline. Another 

commenter suggested that we 

emphasize in subpart (b) the importance 

of training school personnel to address 

underlying causes of disparities in 

school discipline. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important for applicants to promote 

alternative disciplinary practices in 

addition to reducing or eliminating 

exclusionary practices. We have 

therefore edited subpart (b) to include 

this additional focus. 

While we agree with the other 

commenter that school personnel must 

have the appropriate knowledge and 

skills to address disparities in school 

discipline practices, we think that 

projects that are designed to address 

subpart (b) of Priority 13, as proposed, 

could include a focus on training school 

personnel in these matters. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

of Priority 13 to conclude with: ‘‘. . . 

and promoting alternative disciplinary 

practices that address the disparities.’’ 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern with subpart (b) of Priority 13, 

which supports projects that reduce or 

eliminate disparities in school 

discipline practices for particular 

groups of students by identifying and 

addressing the root causes of those 

disparities. The commenter asserted that 

disparities exist because some groups of 

students commit more violations than 

others. 

Discussion: We disagree with the 

commenter, and note that the Civil 

Rights Data Collection Issue Brief No. 

1 12 reported extensively on these 

disparities. Research suggests that the 

substantial racial disparities of the kind 

reflected in the CRDC data are not 

explained by more frequent or more 

serious misbehavior by students of 

color. 13 We also want to clarify the 

purpose of this subpart, which is to 

better understand the root causes of 

disparate disciplinary practices and, 

through that improved understanding, 

reduce or eliminate disparities in 

disciplinary practices among student 

subgroups. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter felt that 

our focus in subpart (c) of Priority 13 

was misplaced, and suggested that we 

restructure the subpart so that projects 

designed to address it would more 

clearly support the re-entry process after 

release from juvenile justice facilities or 

adult correctional facilities. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for this suggestion and agree that reentry should be a more prominent focus 

of subpart (c). 

Changes: We have revised subpart (c) 

of Priority 13 so that it now reads: 

‘‘Improving the quality of educational 

programs in juvenile justice facilities 

(such as detention facilities and secure 

and non-secure placements) or adult 

correctional facilities, or supporting reentry after release, by linking the youth 

or adults to education or job-training 

programs.’’ 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon review, we 

determined that subpart (b) should be 

clarified to acknowledge that efforts to 

either reduce or eliminate disparities in 

school disciplinary practices or to 

reduce or eliminate the use of 

exclusionary discipline may be 

alternative goals for projects designed to 

address Priority 13, and that an 

individual project need not be designed 

to achieve both of those goals in order 

to address the priority. We have made 

that clarification. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

so that it now reads: ‘‘Reducing or 

eliminating disparities in school 

disciplinary practices for particular 

groups of students, including minority 

students and students with disabilities, 

or reducing or eliminating the use of 

exclusionary discipline (such as 

suspensions, expulsions, and 

unnecessary placements in alternative 

education programs) by identifying and 

addressing the root causes of those 

disparities or uses and promoting 

alternative disciplinary practices that 

address the disparities or uses.’’ 

Priority 14—Improving Parent, Family, 

and Community Engagement 

Comment: One commenter supported 

proposed Priority 14, noting that family 

engagement is important in fostering 

language and literacy development in 

young children. A second commenter 

echoed this idea by asking that we 

include in subpart (c) of Priority 14 a 

focus on reducing language barriers 

between parents or families and school 

staff. Another commenter also expressed 

support for this priority and asked that 

we further strengthen the priority to pay 

particular attention to the needs of 

students from low-income families, 

English learners, and other High-need 

Students. One commenter noted that 

Community Engagement and Parent and 

Family Engagement are very important 

for student success, and said that it 

should be ranked higher in the final list 

of priorities. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for their support for Priority 14. We 

think that language and literacy 

outcomes for children and students may 

be improved through strategies that also 

improve Parent and Family Engagement 

in schools. We also agree that language 

barriers between parents or families and 

school staff can be difficult to overcome 

when attempting to engage parents or 

families in their students’ education. 

However, we do not think that changes 

to the priority are necessary to allow 

support for projects that are designed to 

address these needs. Applicants are best 

suited to propose projects to address the 

specific needs of their communities, and 

we therefore decline to revise the 

priority in a manner that might limit its 

use to those applicants that identify 

language barriers as a prevalent issue. 

We also agree that High-need 

Students may need additional support, 

and that their parents may be 

uncomfortable entering their children’s 

schools. Because several of our 

discretionary grant programs are already 

targeted on High-need Students, and 

because we include Priority 4— 

Supporting High-Need Students, we do 

not think that adding an additional 

focus to Priority 14 on High-need 

Students, is necessary. 

Finally, we note that the priorities are 

not ranked in any particular order. None 

of the priorities will be used more 

frequently than others in our 

discretionary grant programs as a result 

of where they fall in this list; the 

Department has discretion in choosing 

which priorities to use in competitions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73447 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that we include a more 

explicit focus in proposed Priority 14 on 

linking learning in school to learning at 

home. One commenter noted that 

including the concept of Systemic 

Initiatives in subpart (b) of Priority 14 

would further emphasize the need to 

develop and implement systems for 

promoting family engagement in 

schools. In addition, two commenters 

expressed support for proposed Priority 

14 and suggested several places—in 

Priority 14, in the other priorities, and 

in some definitions—where the Dual 

Capacity-Building Framework for 

Family and Community Engagement 

could be better represented. 

Discussion: We agree that an 

important outcome of improving parent, 

family, and community engagement is 

to connect what students learn at school 

to the resources and support that are 

available for them at home. We also 

agree that, in order to do this work well, 

it is helpful for schools to have systems 

in place to effectively engage parents 

and families. For these reasons, we 

amend subpart (b) of Priority 14. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

of Priority 14 so that it reads: ‘‘. . . to 

build meaningful relationships with 

students’ parents or families through 

Systemic Initiatives that may also 

support students’ learning at home.’’ 

Comments: One commenter urged us 

to restructure Priority 14 to better reflect 

the Community Engagement or Parent 

and Family Engagement needs of 

children beginning at birth. A few other 

commenters suggested edits to the 

priority to be more inclusive of early 

childhood programs. 

Discussion: We agree that young 

children, in addition to students in 

kindergarten and above, benefit from 

improved Community Engagement and 

Parent and Family Engagement, and 

note that we have made some changes 

to Priority 1—Improving Early Learning 

and Development Outcomes, to improve 

coordination between parents, families, 

and early childhood educators. We have 

revised subparts (b) and (c) to allow for 

support for community-based early 

learning and development programs. 

Changes: In subpart (b), we have 

included references to ‘‘program 

leaders’’ in addition to school leaders, 

and also have included ‘‘practitioners’’ 

in addition to teachers. In subpart (c), 

we have included ‘‘program staff’’ in 

addition to school staff. We have made 

similar changes to the definitions of 

Community Engagement and Parent and 

Family Engagement to include both 

school and program staff. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we add an additional subpart to 

Priority 14 that would support 

opportunities for parents, families, and 

communities to, among other things, 

build meaningful relationships with 

professionals, understand fiscal 

processes, and understand how to use 

data to drive decision-making. Another 

commenter suggested specific edits to 

subpart (a) of Priority 14 to encourage 

parents’ use of technological tools to 

improve communication. 

Discussion: We think that the 

elements suggested by the first 

commenter are important, and note that 

any of these elements could be 

supported by projects that are designed 

under subpart (a) of Priority 14. We also 

note that subpart (c) of Priority 14 

allows for broad improvement of 

Community Engagement. In general, we 

do not think that it is appropriate to list 

specific areas of focus beyond what is 

already discussed in Priority 14, 

because applicants for discretionary 

grant programs may wish to propose 

projects that are designed to support the 

particular needs of their target 

populations. We decline to revise the 

priority in a manner that might limit its 

use. 

We appreciate the second 

commenter’s suggestion to include a 

focus on technological tools, and have 

edited subpart (a) to reflect the 

suggestion. 

Changes: In subpart (a) of Priority 14, 

we have revised the parenthetical list so 

that it now begins with ‘‘including 

techniques or use of technological 

tools . . .’’ 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

support for proposed Priority 14, and 

noted the important role that afterschool 

programs can play in improving 

engagement. Another commenter asked 

that use of technology be explicitly 

included as an innovative tool to 

improve communication with parents 

and families. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for offering approaches to this work that 

may be effective. In general, we do not 

think that it is appropriate to list 

specific strategies or approaches beyond 

what is already discussed in Priority 14, 

because applicants for discretionary 

grant programs may wish to propose 

projects designed to support the 

particular needs of their target 

populations. We decline to revise the 

priority in a manner that might limit its 

potential use. 

We note that both afterschool 

programs and the use of technology 

could be central elements to a project 

designed to meet Priority 14, and we 

think our inclusion of ‘‘program,’’ in 

addition to ‘‘school,’’ in some subparts 

and definitions, as discussed above, 

may facilitate the inclusion of 

afterschool programs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: After reviewing Priority 

14, we conclude that projects that are 

designed to address this priority can 

focus on student outcomes in general, 

rather than purely academic outcomes. 

We think that this is appropriate given 

the types of projects we seek to support 

under Priority 14, and note that any 

project that is designed to address this 

priority could focus on improving 

student academic outcomes. 

Changes: We have removed 

‘‘academic’’ from the introductory 

language of Priority 14. 

Priority 15—Supporting Military 

Families and Veterans 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed support for proposed Priority 

15. 

Response: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions. We discuss and respond 

to comments received on the proposed 

definitions in alphabetical order. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we define the term ‘‘adult learners’’ 

and noted that they make up almost 40 

percent of the college-going population. 

Discussion: We agree that adult 

learners are an important group, and 

note that Priority 5—Increasing 

Postsecondary Access, Affordability, 

and Completion includes several 

mechanisms for supporting adult 

learners. For example, subpart (d) of 

Priority 5 focuses on increasing the 

number of individuals who return to the 

educational system to obtain a Regular 

High School Diploma, enroll in and 

complete postsecondary education, or 

obtain basic and academic skills. We do 

not define ‘‘adult learners’’ because we 

do not include the term in the NFP, but 

we note that our definitions of both 

High-need Students and Low-skilled 

Adult would include the subgroup 

about which the commenter is 

concerned. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise the proposed definition of 

Authentic STEM Experiences to include 

teacher-led integration of STEM fields 

within the K–12 setting. Another 

commenter suggested that we include 

out-of-school time programs and 

summer camp programs in the 

definition. 

Discussion: While we think that each 

commenter’s suggestion is important 

and could be useful for some applicants, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73448 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

we do not think that the definition of 

Authentic STEM Experiences precludes 

an applicant from using any of the 

strategies or programs discussed above. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

definition of Community Engagement 

and asked that we include specific types 

of organizations in the definition. One 

commenter noted the important role 

that public media can play in fostering 

engagement, and another asked that 

museums, cultural organizations, and 

other art venues be highlighted in the 

definitions of Community Engagement 

and Sustained Partnerships. 

Another commenter suggested that we 

revise the proposed definition of 

Community Engagement to include 

examples of systematic inclusion. 

Discussion: We agree that several 

types of organizations, in addition to 

those listed in the definitions of 

Community Engagement and Sustained 

Partnerships, may play integral roles in 

projects to improve Community 

Engagement or Parent and Family 

Engagement. We note that our definition 

of Community Engagement includes an 

illustrative list of organizations that may 

partner with SEAs, LEAs, or other 

educational institutions, and that other 

organizations not specifically listed in 

the definition could also be appropriate 

partners, depending on the scope of a 

proposed project. Our definition of 

Sustained Partnerships includes a 

similar list, but is not structured in a 

way that provides for flexible 

interpretation. We therefore restructure 

that definition to reflect the structure of 

the Community Engagement definition, 

so that applicants may include other 

organizations in addition to those listed 

as examples in the definition. 

Finally, we agree with the commenter 

that including examples of systematic 

inclusion may be helpful, and have 

revised the definition of Community 

Engagement to include an illustrative 

list of possible ways to systematically 

include community organizations as 

partners with SEAs, LEAs, or other 

educational institutions, or their school 

or program staff. 

Changes: We have included in the 

definition of Community Engagement 

the following strategies as possible ways 

to achieve systemic inclusion: 

‘‘Developing a shared community 

vision, establishing a shared 

accountability agreement, participating 

in shared data collection and analysis, 

or establishing community networks 

that are focused on shared communitylevel outcomes.’’ We have also revised 

the definition of Sustained Partnerships 

to make the list of possible partner 

organizations illustrative rather than 

complete. 

Comment: One commenter identified 

technical errors in the proposed 

definitions of Community Engagement 

and Sustained Partnerships. First, the 

commenter asserted that Title III of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) 

does not authorize grants to IHEs 

generally; rather, it authorizes Federal 

assistance to certain types of 

institutions. Second, the commenter 

noted that Hispanic-serving institutions 

are eligible for assistance under Title V, 

not Title III, of the HEA and that, 

without specific mention of Title V in 

our definitions of Community 

Engagement and Sustained 

Partnerships, those institutions would 

not be included. Finally, the commenter 

stated that historically black colleges 

and universities (HBCUs) are a type of 

minority-serving institution (MSI), and 

are eligible for assistance under Title III 

of the HEA. Because HBCUs are a type 

of MSI that is authorized to receive 

assistance under Title III, it is not 

necessary to mention them in addition 

to MSIs. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for pointing out these errors. We have 

revised the definitions of Community 

Engagement and Sustained Partnerships 

to ensure that the HEA is cited properly, 

that Hispanic-serving institutions are 

included, and that we do not include 

redundant references to specific types of 

MSIs. 

Changes: In the definitions of 

Community Engagement and Sustained 

Partnerships, we have amended our 

reference to the HEA so that it includes 

Title III and Title V. We have also 

deleted specific reference to HBCUs. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we add language to the proposed 

definitions of Community Engagement 

and Parent and Family Engagement to 

indicate that the goal of such 

engagement must be to improve student 

academic and other related outcomes. 

Another commenter asked that our 

definitions of Community Engagement 

and Parent and Family Engagement 

require that inclusion of community 

organizations be not only systematic, 

but sustained over time. 

Discussion: We think that it is 

important that projects supported by the 

Department generally be designed to 

support students. As proposed, any 

project addressing Priority 14 must be 

designed to improve student academic 

outcomes through strategies supporting 

Community Engagement or Parent and 

Family Engagement. Therefore, we do 

not think that it is necessary to include 

an additional focus on improving 

student academic outcomes in the 

definitions of Community Engagement 

and Parent and Family Engagement. 

We think that the issue of sustaining 

strong partnerships is an important one. 

However, we think that by requiring 

grantees to systematically include 

community organizations in their work, 

through the definitions, sustainable 

partnerships could happen organically. 

We also think that requiring a focus on 

sustained inclusion may disadvantage 

an applicant that is implementing those 

strategies for the first time. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we include ‘‘validating credentials’’ 

in the definition of Employer 

Engagement to signal the importance of 

ensuring that credentials provided by 

training programs are those needed for 

in-demand jobs. Another commenter 

suggested that we include, in the 

definition of Employer Engagement, a 

focus on encouraging employers to 

actively recruit Low-skilled Adults and 

High-need Students. A third commenter 

thought that it was important to include 

potential employers in the definition to 

more fully reflect the economic 

challenges that rural communities face. 

Discussion: We agree that validating 

credentials is an important part of 

Employer Engagement and we have 

edited the definition to reflect that. We 

decline to make the change 

recommended by the second commenter 

because the definition of Employer 

Engagement is focused on ways in 

which employers can be involved in the 

design and delivery of education and 

training programs, rather than activities 

that seek to influence how and who 

employers hire. One intended result of 

greater Employer Engagement, however, 

is that education and training programs 

will be more successful in preparing 

and placing Low-skilled Adults and 

High-need Students in employment. 

With regard to the third commenter’s 

suggestion, we decline to make the 

change because the goal of subpart (a) of 

Priority 6, which is increasing Employer 

Engagement, is to encourage education 

and training programs to engage with 

entities that hire workers so that these 

programs can prepare individuals for indemand jobs. Engaging with an entity 

that merely has the ‘‘potential’’ to hire 

workers sometime in the future would 

not advance this goal. 

Changes: We have included in the 

definition of Employer Engagement the 

phrase ‘‘validating credentials’’ as a way 

in which employers may demonstrate 

active involvement. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

creative arts expression be included in 

the definition of Essential Domains of 

School Readiness, so that the definition 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73449 

would align with the Strong Start for 

America’s Children Act of 2013. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion and have edited 

the definition of Essential Domains of 

School Readiness to align with the 

Strong Start for America’s Children Act 

of 2013 and with the Department’s 

Preschool Development Grants program. 

Changes: We have edited the 

definition of Essential Domains of 

School Readiness so that it is aligned 

with the Strong Start for America’s 

Children Act of 2013 and with the 

Department’s Preschool Development 

Grants program. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we include a definition of ‘‘graduation 

rate,’’ and suggested that it be consistent 

with the definition in 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1). 

Discussion: The term ‘‘graduation 

rate’’ is not included in the 

Supplemental Priorities so we think it is 

unnecessary to define it. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the Department add more 

student groups to the illustrative list 

that is included in the definition of 

High-need Students. Specifically, 

commenters asked that vulnerable 

students, students with multiple 

disciplinary incidents, chronically 

absent students, students with low-level 

literacy achievement, and new 

immigrants be explicitly listed as 

examples in the definition of High-need 

Students. One commenter suggested 

that the Department change ‘‘such as’’ to 

‘‘and’’ so that, in order to meet the 

definition of High-need Students, the 

students would need to be among one 

of the listed groups. 

Discussion: So long as the students 

are at risk of educational failure or 

otherwise in need of special assistance, 

the definition of High-need Students 

could include the groups of students 

suggested by the commenters. 

Applicants are not limited by the 

examples provided in the definition. We 

think that it is important that an 

applicant have the discretion to 

determine which students are at risk of 

educational failure, and to discuss how 

the proposed project will meet the 

needs of those students. 

Also, it should be noted that this 

definition is consistent with the existing 

definition of this term that is used by 

Department programs, such as the 

Investing in Innovation Fund. Although 

we agree with the commenters that 

additional groups of students may be 

considered High-need Students, we 

think that it is important for the 

Department to be consistent in defining 

this term. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

questioned the differences between the 

definitions of Children with High Needs 

and High-need Students. One 

commenter suggested defining ‘‘low 

income’’ in the definition of Children 

with High-needs and suggested using 

‘‘children from low-income families’’ in 

both definitions. 

Discussion: Because Children with 

High Needs, as we define that term, are 

not yet in school, an exact alignment 

between these two terms is not 

appropriate (for example, Children with 

High Needs do not attend school and, 

thus, cannot attend High-minority 

Schools). Further, we note that the 

terms Children with High Needs and 

High-need Students are currently used 

in other Department programs (such as 

Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge and the Investing in 

Innovation Fund); and we think that it 

is important for the Department to be 

consistent in defining these terms. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concerns with the definitions 

of High-quality Teacher Evaluation and 

Support System and High-quality 

Principal Evaluation and Support 

system. 

Specifically, one commenter was 

concerned that the definition of Highquality Teacher Evaluation and Support 

System would not allow for fair and 

appropriate assessment of early career 

teachers, for whom there may not be 

sufficient Student Growth data 

available. One commenter thought that 

we did not include a formative 

assessment component, teacher buy-in 

and collective bargaining rights were 

not adequately reflected, our use of the 

phrase ‘‘significant factor’’ with respect 

to using Student Growth to inform 

assessments of teacher performance was 

unclear, and that States may 

unfavorably interpret the term 

‘‘significant’’ when measuring Student 

Growth. Another commenter asked that 

we clarify that, under the proposed 

definition, teachers would be evaluated 

only for subjects they teach. 

Commenters expressed similar 

concerns about the definition of Highquality Principal Evaluation and 

Support System. In particular, one 

commenter was concerned with using 

Student Growth as a significant factor in 

evaluating principal performance, 

because teachers have a larger impact on 

student performance than principals. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for their thoughtful consideration of 

both definitions. These definitions are 

aligned with Department guidance to 

States on ESEA flexibility waivers, 

which we think is appropriate. 

To address some of the specific 

concerns of the commenters, we note 

that both definitions refer to regularly 

scheduled evaluations and clear and 

timely feedback. We think that these 

provisions speak clearly to the need for 

formative assessments. We also note 

that both high-quality teacher and 

principal evaluation and support 

systems must, as defined, be developed 

with teacher and principal involvement. 

We think that teacher buy-in is an 

integral piece in developing and 

implementing high-quality evaluation 

and support systems, and the 

definitions do not affect collective 

bargaining rights or agreements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that we expand the definition of Lowskilled Adult. One commenter asked 

that we include adults who are not 

fluent in English and who may also be 

illiterate in their native language. 

Another commenter suggested that we 

include adults who do not have a high 

school diploma (or its recognized 

equivalent) or the postsecondary 

credential or degree necessary to obtain 

employment. 

Discussion: We agree that the groups 

of individuals described by the 

commenters may need targeted support 

to succeed in the workforce. We note, 

however, that these groups would be 

included in our definition of High-need 

Students, and that Low-skilled Adults 

and High-need Students are referenced 

specifically in subparts (b) and (c) of 

Priority 6—Improving Job-Driven 

Training and Employment Outcomes. 

The Department does not need to amend 

the definition of Low-skilled Adult in 

order for those groups identified by the 

commenters to be incorporated under 

the priorities because those groups 

would be appropriately categorized as 

High-need Students and could be 

supported by projects designed to 

address those subparts. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

edits to the definition of Military- or 

Veteran-connected Student. One 

commenter suggested that we revise the 

definition to include children of 

military families who do not reside on 

military bases and children of veterans. 

Another commenter asked that we 

include a focus on children with high 

needs, including children with 

disabilities. 

Discussion: The definition of Militaryor Veteran-connected Student 

encompasses all of the groups described 

by the commenters. The definition does 

not prescribe where students must live 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73450 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

in order to be categorized as military- or 

veteran-connected. A High-need 

Student could be included in the 

definition as long as that student has a 

parent or guardian who is a member of 

the uniformed services, the student is a 

member of the uniformed services, or 

the student has a parent or guardian 

who is a veteran. Children of veterans 

are clearly included in subpart (c) of the 

definition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revisions to the definition of Parent and 

Family Engagement so that it would 

include activities that take place prior to 

school entry, beginning at the prenatal 

period. Another commenter suggested 

that we include in the definition a focus 

on engaging parents and families as 

their children transition from early 

learning and development programs to 

kindergarten, and connecting those 

parents and families to appropriate 

social services. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestions, and edit the 

definition to include a focus on program 

staff, in addition to school staff, which 

significantly broadens the scope of the 

definition. We do not think it is 

appropriate to further broaden the 

definition. 

We appreciate the commenter’s 

suggestion to include supports for 

parents and families as their children 

transition from early learning and 

development programs to kindergarten. 

We note that we have revised subpart (c) 

of Priority 1—Improving Early Learning 

and Development Outcomes so that 

applicants addressing this subpart must 

weave Parent and Family Engagement 

into a project designed to improve 

transitions for children across the birththrough-third-grade continuum. 

Therefore, we do not think that the 

changes suggested by the commenter are 

necessary. 

Changes: We have revised the 

definition of Parent and Family 

Engagement to include program staff, in 

addition to school staff. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

edits to the definition of Persistentlylowest Achieving School. 

Discussion: This definition is widely 

used across the Department, and 

amendments to the definition would 

have implications for any discretionary 

grant program that wishes to use the 

priorities that include this definition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested revisions to the proposed 

definition of Personalized Learning. One 

commenter suggested clarifying the term 

so that both scope and sequence of 

instruction can be tailored to individual 

learners. One commenter stated that the 

second sentence in the proposed 

definition be deleted, because the 

objectives and content of the instruction 

should not vary from college- and 

career-ready standards. 

One commenter stated that the 

definition is too broad, and requested 

the Department to identify the specific 

interventions that would be included or 

excluded. Another commenter 

recommended that the definition be 

strengthened through the specific 

inclusion of supports for student 

engagement in Personalized Learning 

environments. 

One commenter suggested that we 

amend the definition to clarify that the 

role of digital tools and technology is to 

use data and student engagement as the 

driving forces in Personalized Learning. 

One commenter recommended 

explaining in the definition that data 

from Personalized Learning should be 

used to create a feedback loop between 

students, their parents, and their 

teachers. Another commenter stated that 

data should always be used to improve 

learning and instruction in Personalized 

Learning. 

Discussion: Many of the commenters’ 

suggestions are captured in the 

definition of Personalized Learning. For 

example, ‘‘scope’’ and ‘‘sequence’’ are 

consistent with the definition’s 

reference to learning objectives, content, 

learning activities, and pace varying 

depending on a learner’s needs. 

Regarding the comment that learning 

objectives and content should not vary 

by learner, we note that learning 

objectives differ from standards. A 

learning objective is aligned with 

college- and career-ready standards, but 

the specific learning objective or content 

in which a learner focuses in a given 

lesson may vary based on that learner’s 

needs and mastery at a given point in 

time. Thus, we decline to remove the 

references to learning objectives and 

content. 

We do not want to revise the 

definition in a manner that would 

prescribe specific approaches to 

Personalized Learning. For that reason, 

we decline to list specific interventions 

or supports that may or may not be used 

to implement Personalized Learning 

approaches. Also, although we agree 

that digital tools and technology are 

valuable tools, we do not want to 

prescribe or limit the types of tools that 

may be used under the definition of 

Personalized Learning. 

We agree with commenters that 

available data should be used in 

Personalized Learning approaches and 

that data are most helpful when 

supporting a feedback loop between 

students, their parents, and their 

teachers. We think that the definition of 

Personalized Learning is consistent with 

these activities and that a revision is not 

necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we include ‘‘relevant external 

partners’’ as part of the definition of 

Tiered Behavioral Supports, noting that 

external partners can play an important 

role in matching intensive supports to 

student needs. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter and have included the 

suggested phrase in the definition. 

Changes: We have revised the 

definition of Tiered Behavioral Supports 

so that it now reads: ‘‘. . . a continuum 

of increasingly intensive and evidencebased social, emotional, and behavioral 

supports, including a framework of 

universal strategies for students, school 

staff, and relevant external partners to 

promote positive behavior and databased strategies for matching more 

intensive supports to individual student 

needs.’’ 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: After review, we 

determined that the definition of 

Student Achievement was not fully 

aligned with the definition of that term 

included in the Race to the Top (RTT) 

program. Specifically, the definition in 

the NPP would require applicants to 

measure student achievement for grades 

and subjects that require assessment 

under the ESEA through both student 

scores and other measures of student 

learning. The RTT program, however, 

requires only that student scores be 

used to inform student achievement. 

Other measures may be used as 

appropriate. 

Changes: We have revised the 

definition of Student Achievement to 

clarify that other measures of student 

learning may be used, as appropriate, to 

determine student achievement in 

grades and subjects for which 

assessments are required under the 

ESEA. 

Final Priorities 

The Secretary establishes the 

following priorities and related 

definitions for use in any appropriate 

discretionary grant competitions in FY 

2015 and future years. These priorities 

and definitions replace the 

supplemental priorities and definitions 

that were published in 2010. 

Priority 1—Improving Early Learning 

and Development Outcomes 

Projects that are designed to improve 

early learning and development 

outcomes across one or more of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73451 

14Examples of such integration include 

partnering or coordinating with other programs that 

provide job training and employment services, 

including American Job Centers and other programs 

authorized by the Workforce Investment Act or the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. 

Essential Domains of School Readiness 

for children from birth through third 

grade (or for any age group within this 

range) through a focus on one or more 

of the following: 

(a) Increasing access to high-quality 

early learning and development 

programs and comprehensive services, 

particularly for Children with High 

Needs. 

(b) Improving the quality and 

effectiveness of the early learning 

workforce so that early childhood 

educators, including administrators, 

have the knowledge, skills, and abilities 

necessary to improve young children’s 

health, social-emotional, and cognitive 

outcomes. 

(c) Improving the coordination and 

alignment among early learning and 

development systems and between such 

systems and elementary education 

systems, including coordination and 

alignment in engaging and supporting 

families and improving transitions for 

children along the birth-through-thirdgrade continuum, in accordance with 

applicable privacy laws. 

(d) Including preschool, whether 

offered in school or community-based 

settings, as part of elementary education 

programs and systems in order to 

expand opportunities for preschool 

students and teachers. 

(e) Sustaining improved early learning 

and development outcomes throughout 

the early elementary school years. 

Priority 2—Influencing the 

Development of Non-Cognitive Factors 

Projects that are designed to improve 

students’ mastery of non-cognitive skills 

and behaviors (such as academic 

behaviors, academic mindset, 

perseverance, self-regulation, social and 

emotional skills, and approaches toward 

learning strategies) and enhance student 

motivation and engagement in learning. 

Priority 3—Promoting Personalized 

Learning 

Projects that are designed to improve 

student academic outcomes and close 

academic opportunity or attainment 

gaps through one or both of the 

following: 

(a) Implementing Personalized 

Learning approaches that will ensure 

appropriate support and produce 

academic excellence for all students. 

(b) Awarding credit or Digital 

Credentials based on Personalized 

Learning or adaptive assessments of 

academic performance, cognitive 

growth, or behavioral improvements 

and aligned with college- and careerready standards. 

Priority 4—Supporting High-Need 

Students 

(a) Projects that are designed to 

improve: 

(i) Academic outcomes; 

(ii) Learning environments; or 

(iii) Both, 

(b) For one or more of the following 

groups of students: 

(i) High-need Students. 

(ii) Students served by Rural Local 

Educational Agencies. 

(iii) Students with disabilities. 

(iv) English learners. 

(v) Students in Lowest-performing 

Schools. 

(vi) Students who are living in 

poverty and are served by schools with 

high concentrations of students living in 

poverty. 

(vii) Disconnected Youth or migrant 

youth. 

(viii) Low-skilled Adults. 

(ix) Students who are members of 

federally recognized Indian tribes. 

Priority 5—Increasing Postsecondary 

Access, Affordability, and Completion 

Projects that are designed to address 

one or more of the following: 

(a) Reducing the net cost, median 

student loan debt, and likelihood of 

student loan default for High-need 

Students who enroll in college, other 

postsecondary education, or other career 

and technical education. 

(b) Increasing the number and 

proportion of High-need Students who 

are academically prepared for, enroll in, 

or complete on time college, other 

postsecondary education, or other career 

and technical education. 

(c) Increasing the number and 

proportion of High-need Students who, 

through college preparation, awareness, 

recruitment, application, selection, and 

other activities and strategies, enroll in 

or complete college, other 

postsecondary education, or other career 

and technical education. 

(d) Increasing the number of 

individuals who return to the 

educational system to obtain a Regular 

High School Diploma or its recognized 

equivalent; enroll in and complete 

college, other postsecondary education, 

or career and technical training; or 

obtain basic and academic skills that 

they need to succeed in college, other 

postsecondary education, other career 

and technical education, or the 

workforce. 

(e) Increasing the number and 

proportion of High-need Students, 

particularly Low-skilled Adults, 

individuals with disabilities, and 

Disconnected Youth or youth who are at 

risk of becoming disconnected, who 

enroll in and complete postsecondary 

programs. 

(f) Supporting the development and 

implementation of high-quality online 

or hybrid credit-bearing and accessible 

learning opportunities that reduce the 

cost of higher education, reduce time to 

degree completion, or allow students to 

progress at their own pace. 

Priority 6—Improving Job-Driven 

Training and Employment Outcomes 

Projects that are designed to improve 

job-driven training and employment 

outcomes through a focus on one or 

more of the following: 

(a) Increasing Employer Engagement. 

(b) Providing work-based learning 

opportunities (such as Registered 

Apprenticeships, other apprenticeships, 

internships, externships, on-the-job 

training, co-operative learning, practica, 

and work experience) for Low-skilled 

Adults or other High-need Students. 

(c) Integrating education and training 

into a career pathways program or 

system that offers connected education 

and training (such as education and 

training programs offered by community 

colleges or other institutions of higher 

education), related Stackable 

Credentials, and support services that 

enable Low-skilled Adults or other 

High-need Students to obtain industryrecognized credentials and obtain 

employment within an occupational 

area with the potential to advance to 

higher levels of education and 

employment in that area.14

(d) Providing Labor Market 

Information, career information, 

advising, counseling, job search 

assistance, and other supports, such as 

performance-based or other income 

supports or stipends, transportation and 

child care assistance and information, 

that facilitate credential attainment, 

employability, and job tenure. 

(e) Using Labor Market Information to 

inform the focus of programs and to 

guide jobseekers in choosing the types 

of employment or fields of study, 

training, or credentials to pursue. 

(f) Improving the knowledge and 

skills of service providers that will 

enable the providers to better assist their 

customers to obtain the competencies 

and job skills that are needed in the 

competitive labor market. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73452 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

15For the purpose of this priority, the term 

‘‘principal’’ also refers to an assistant principal. 

Priority 7—Promoting Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Projects that are designed to improve 

Student Achievement or other related 

outcomes by addressing one or more of 

the following: 

(a) Increasing the preparation of 

teachers or other educators in STEM 

subjects through activities that may 

include building content knowledge and 

pedagogical content knowledge, and 

increasing the number and quality of 

Authentic STEM Experiences. 

(b) Providing students with increased 

access to rigorous and engaging STEM 

coursework and Authentic STEM 

Experiences that may be integrated 

across multiple settings. 

(c) Identifying and implementing 

instructional strategies, systems, and 

structures that improve postsecondary 

learning and retention, resulting in 

completion of a degree in a STEM field. 

(d) Increasing the number of 

individuals from groups that have been 

historically under-represented in STEM, 

including minorities, individuals with 

disabilities, and women, who are 

provided with access to rigorous and 

engaging coursework in STEM or who 

are prepared for postsecondary study 

and careers in STEM. 

(e) Supporting local or regional 

partnerships to give students access to 

real-world STEM experiences and to 

give educators access to high-quality 

STEM-related professional learning. 

Priority 8—Implementing 

Internationally Benchmarked Collegeand Career-Ready Standards and 

Assessments 

Projects that are designed to support 

the implementation of, and transition to, 

internationally benchmarked collegeand career-ready standards and 

assessments, including projects in one 

or more of the following: 

(a) Developing and implementing 

student assessments (such as formative 

assessments, interim assessments, and 

summative assessments) or 

performance-based tools that are aligned 

with those standards, that are accessible 

to all students. 

(b) Developing and implementing 

teacher or principal professional 

development or preparation programs 

that are aligned with those standards. 

(c) Developing and implementing 

strategies that use the standards and 

information from assessments to inform 

classroom practices that meet the needs 

of all students. 

Priority 9—Improving Teacher 

Effectiveness and Promoting Equitable 

Access to Effective Teachers 

Projects that are designed to address 

one or more of the following: 

(a) Increasing the number and 

percentage of effective teachers in 

Lowest-performing Schools, schools in 

Rural Local Educational Agencies, or 

schools with high concentrations of 

students from low-income families and 

minority students, through such 

activities as: 

(i) Improving the preparation, 

recruitment, selection, and early career 

development of teachers; implementing 

performance-based certification 

systems; reforming compensation and 

advancement systems; and reforming 

hiring timelines and systems. 

(ii) Improving the retention of 

effective teachers through such 

activities as creating or enhancing 

opportunities for teachers’ professional 

growth; delivering professional 

development to teachers that is relevant, 

effective, and outcome-oriented; 

reforming compensation and 

advancement systems; and improving 

workplace conditions to create 

opportunities for successful teaching 

and learning. 

(b) Promoting equitable access to 

effective teachers for students from lowincome families and minority students 

across and within schools and districts. 

For the purposes of this priority, 

teacher effectiveness must be measured 

using a High-quality Teacher Evaluation 

and Support System. 

Priority 10—Improving the 

Effectiveness of Principals 15

Projects that are designed to increase 

the number and percentage of highly 

effective principals by addressing one or 

more of the following: 

(a) Creating or expanding practices 

and strategies to recruit, select, prepare, 

and support talented individuals to lead 

and significantly improve instruction in 

Lowest-performing Schools, schools in 

Rural Local Educational Agencies, or 

schools with high concentrations of 

High-need Students. 

(b) Identifying, implementing, and 

supporting policies and school and 

district conditions that facilitate efforts 

by principals to turn around Lowestperforming Schools. 

(c) Creating or expanding principal 

preparation programs that include 

clinical experiences, induction and 

other supports for program participants, 

strategies for tracking the effect that 

program graduates have on teaching and 

learning, and coursework that is aligned 

with pre-kindergarten through grade 12 

college- and career-ready standards. 

(d) Implementing professional 

development for current principals, 

especially in Lowest-performing 

Schools, that is designed to improve 

teacher and student learning by 

supporting principals in their mastery of 

essential instructional and 

organizational leadership skills. 

(e) Implementing practices or 

strategies that support districts in 

hiring, evaluating, supporting, and 

retaining effective principals. 

For the purposes of this priority, 

principal effectiveness must be 

measured using a High-quality Principal 

Evaluation and Support System. 

Priority 11—Leveraging Technology To 

Support Instructional Practice and 

Professional Development 

Projects that are designed to leverage 

technology through one or more of the 

following: 

(a) Using high-speed Internet access 

and devices to increase students’ and 

educators’ access to high-quality 

accessible digital tools, assessments, 

and materials, particularly Open 

Educational Resources. 

(b) Implementing high-quality 

accessible digital tools, assessments, 

and materials that are aligned with 

rigorous college- and career-ready 

standards. 

(c) Implementing high-quality, 

accessible online courses, online 

learning communities, or online 

simulations, such as those for which 

educators could earn professional 

development credit or continuing 

education units through Digital 

Credentials based on demonstrated 

mastery of competencies and 

performance-based outcomes, instead of 

traditional time-based metrics. 

(d) Using data platforms that enable 

the development, visualization, and 

rapid analysis of data to inform and 

improve learning outcomes, while also 

protecting privacy in accordance with 

applicable laws. 

Priority 12—Promoting Diversity 

Projects that are designed to prepare 

students for success in an increasingly 

diverse workforce and society by 

increasing the diversity, including 

racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic 

diversity, of students enrolled in 

individual schools or postsecondary 

programs; or, in the case of preschool, 

elementary, or secondary programs, 

decreasing the racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic isolation of students 

who are served by the project. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73453 

Priority 13—Improving School Climate, 

Behavioral Supports, and Correctional 

Education 

Projects that are designed to improve 

student outcomes through one or more 

of the following: 

(a) Improving school climate through 

strategies that may include establishing 

Tiered Behavioral Supports or 

strengthening student social, emotional, 

and behavioral skills. 

(b) Reducing or eliminating 

disparities in school disciplinary 

practices for particular groups of 

students, including minority students 

and students with disabilities, or 

reducing or eliminating the use of 

exclusionary discipline (such as 

suspensions, expulsions, and 

unnecessary placements in alternative 

education programs) by identifying and 

addressing the root causes of those 

disparities or uses and promoting 

alternative disciplinary practices that 

address the disparities or uses. 

(c) Improving the quality of 

educational programs in juvenile justice 

facilities (such as detention facilities 

and secure and non-secure placements) 

or adult correctional facilities, or 

supporting re-entry after release, by 

linking the youth or adults to education 

or job training programs. 

Priority 14—Improving Parent, Family, 

and Community Engagement 

Projects that are designed to improve 

student outcomes through one or more 

of the following: 

(a) Developing and implementing 

Systemic Initiatives to improve Parent 

and Family Engagement by expanding 

and enhancing the skills, strategies, and 

knowledge (including techniques or use 

of technological tools needed to 

effectively communicate, advocate, 

support, and make informed decisions 

about the student’s education) of 

parents and families. 

(b) Providing professional 

development that enhances the skills 

and competencies of school or program 

leaders, principals, teachers, 

practitioners, or other administrative 

and support staff to build meaningful 

relationships with students’ parents or 

families through Systemic Initiatives 

that may also support students’ learning 

at home. 

(c) Implementing initiatives that 

improve Community Engagement, the 

relationships between parents or 

families and school or program staff by 

cultivating Sustained Partnerships. 

Priority 15—Supporting Military 

Families and Veterans 

Projects that are designed to address 

the needs of Military- or Veteranconnected Students. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Definitions 

Authentic STEM experiences means 

laboratory, research-based, or 

experiential learning opportunities in a 

STEM (science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics) subject in informal or 

formal settings. 

Children with high needs means 

children from birth through 

kindergarten entry who are from lowincome families or otherwise in need of 

special assistance and support, 

including children who have disabilities 

or developmental delays; who are 

English learners; who reside on ‘‘Indian 

lands’’ as that term is defined by section 

8013(7) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA); who are migrant, 

homeless, or in foster care; and who are 

other children as identified by the State. 

Community engagement means the 

systematic inclusion of community 

organizations as partners with State 

educational agencies, local educational 

agencies, or other educational 

institutions, or their school or program 

staff to accomplish activities that may 

include developing a shared community 

vision, establishing a shared 

accountability agreement, participating 

in shared data-collection and analysis, 

or establishing community networks 

that are focused on shared communitylevel outcomes. These organizations 

may include faith- and communitybased organizations, institutions of 

higher education (including minorityserving institutions eligible to receive 

aid under Title III or Title V of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965), 

businesses and industries, labor 

organizations, State and local 

government entities, or Federal entities 

other than the Department. 

Digital credentials means evidence of 

mastery of specific competencies or 

performance-based abilities, provided in 

digital rather than physical medium 

(such as through digital badges). These 

digital credentials may then be used to 

supplement or satisfy continuing 

education or professional development 

requirements. 

Disconnected youth means lowincome individuals, ages 14–24, who 

are homeless, are in foster care, are 

involved in the justice system, or are not 

working or not enrolled in (or at risk of 

dropping out of) an educational 

institution. 

Employer engagement means the 

active involvement of employers, 

employer associations, and labor 

organizations in identifying skills and 

competencies, validating credentials, 

designing programs, offering real 

workplace problem sets, facilitating 

access to leading-edge equipment and 

facilities, providing ‘‘return to work’’- 

type professional development 

opportunities for faculty, and providing 

work-based learning and mentoring 

opportunities for participants. 

Essential domains of school readiness 

means the domains of language and 

literacy development, cognition and 

general knowledge (including early 

mathematics and early scientific 

development), approaches toward 

learning (including the utilization of the 

arts), physical well-being and motor 

development (including adaptive skills), 

and social and emotional development. 

High-minority school means a school 

as that term is defined by a local 

educational agency (LEA), which must 

define the term in a manner consistent 

with its State’s Teacher Equity Plan, as 

required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The 

applicant must provide the definition(s) 

of High-minority Schools used in its 

application. 

High-need students means students 

who are at risk of educational failure or 

otherwise in need of special assistance 

and support, such as students who are 

living in poverty, who attend Highmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73454 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

minority Schools, who are far below 

grade level, who have left school before 

receiving a Regular High School 

Diploma, who are at risk of not 

graduating with a diploma on time, who 

are homeless, who are in foster care, 

who have been incarcerated, who have 

disabilities, or who are English learners. 

High-quality teacher evaluation and 

support system means a system that 

provides for continuous improvement of 

instruction; differentiates performance 

using at least three performance levels; 

uses multiple valid measures to 

determine performance levels, including 

data on Student Growth as a significant 

factor and other measures of 

professional practice; evaluates teachers 

on a regular basis; provides clear and 

timely feedback that identifies needs 

and guides professional development; is 

developed with teacher and principal 

involvement; and is used to inform 

personnel decisions. 

High-quality principal evaluation and 

support system means a system that 

provides for continuous improvement of 

instruction; differentiates performance 

using at least three performance levels; 

uses multiple valid measures to 

determine performance levels, including 

data on Student Growth as a significant 

factor and other measures of 

professional practice; evaluates 

principals on a regular basis; provides 

clear and timely feedback that identifies 

needs and guides professional 

development; is developed with teacher 

and principal involvement; and is used 

to inform personnel decisions. 

Labor market information means data 

on current and projected local, regional, 

State, and national labor markets, such 

as the number and type of available 

jobs, future demand, job characteristics, 

training and skills requirements, and the 

composition, characteristics, and skills 

of the labor force. 

Low-skilled adult means an adult with 

low literacy and numeracy skills. 

Lowest-performing schools means— 

For a State with an approved request 

for flexibility under the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA, Priority Schools or 

Tier I and Tier II Schools that have been 

identified under the School 

Improvement Grants program. 

For any other State, Tier I and Tier II 

Schools that have been identified under 

the School Improvement Grants 

program. 

Military- or veteran-connected student 

means— 

(a) A child participating in an early 

learning and development program, a 

student enrolled in preschool through 

grade 12, or a student enrolled in 

postsecondary education or career and 

technical training who has a parent or 

guardian who is a member of the 

uniformed services (as defined by 37 

U.S.C. 101, in the Army, Navy, Air 

Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, 

National Guard, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, or Public 

Health Service); 

(b) A student who is a member of the 

uniformed services, a veteran of the 

uniformed services, or the spouse of a 

service member or veteran; or 

(c) A child participating in an early 

learning and development program or a 

student enrolled in preschool through 

grade 12 who has a parent or guardian 

who is a veteran of the uniformed 

services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101). 

Open educational resources means 

teaching, learning, and research 

resources that reside in the public 

domain or have been released under an 

intellectual property license that 

permits their free use and repurposing 

by others. 

Parent and family engagement means 

the systematic inclusion of parents and 

families, working in partnership with 

State educational agencies (SEAs), State 

lead agencies (under Part C of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) or the State’s Race to the 

Top-Early Learning Challenge grant), 

local educational agencies (LEAs), or 

other educational institutions, or their 

staff, in their child’s education, which 

may include strengthening the ability of 

(a) parents and families to support their 

child’s education; and (b) school or 

program staff to work with parents and 

families. 

Persistently-lowest achieving school 

means, as determined by the State— 

(a)(1) Any Title I school that has been 

identified for improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring under section 

1116 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA) and that— 

(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring or the lowest-achieving 

five Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring in the 

State, whichever number of schools is 

greater; or 

(ii) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years; and 

(2) Any secondary school that is 

eligible for, but does not receive, Title 

I funds that— 

(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of secondary schools or the 

lowest-achieving five secondary schools 

in the State that are eligible for, but do 

not receive, Title I funds, whichever 

number of schools is greater; or 

(ii) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

(b) To identify the lowest-achieving 

schools, a State must take into account 

both— 

(i) The academic achievement of the 

‘‘all students’’ group in a school in 

terms of proficiency on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA), in reading/language arts and 

mathematics combined; and 

(ii) The school’s lack of progress on 

those assessments over a number of 

years in the ‘‘all students’’ group. 

Personalized learning means 

instruction that is aligned with rigorous 

college- and career-ready standards so 

that the pace of learning and the 

instructional approach are tailored to 

the needs of individual learners. 

Learning objectives and content, as well 

as the pace, may all vary depending on 

a learner’s needs. In addition, learning 

activities are aligned with specific 

interests of each learner. Data from a 

variety of sources (including formative 

assessments, student feedback, and 

progress in digital learning activities), 

along with teacher recommendations, 

are often used to personalize learning. 

Priority schools means schools that, 

based on the most recent data available, 

have been identified as among the 

lowest-performing schools in the State. 

The total number of Priority Schools in 

a State must be at least five percent of 

the Title I schools in the State. A 

priority school is— 

(a) A school among the lowest five 

percent of Title I schools in the State 

based on the achievement of the ‘‘all 

students’’ group in terms of proficiency 

on the statewide assessments that are 

part of the SEA’s differentiated 

recognition, accountability, and support 

system, combined, and has 

demonstrated a lack of progress on those 

assessments over a number of years in 

the ‘‘all students’’ group; 

(b) A Title I-participating or Title Ieligible high school with a graduation 

rate that is less than 60 percent over a 

number of years; or 

(c) A Tier I or Tier II school under the 

School Improvement Grant (SIG) 

program that is using SIG funds to 

implement a school intervention model. 

Regular high school diploma means 

the standard high school diploma that is 

awarded to students in the State and 

that is fully aligned with the State’s 

academic content standards or a higher 

diploma and does not include a General 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 73455 

Education Development (GED) 

credential, certificate of attendance, or 

any alternative award. 

Rural local educational agency means 

a local educational agency (LEA) that is 

eligible under the Small Rural School 

Achievement (SRSA) program or the 

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under Title VI, Part 

B of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA). Eligible applicants may 

determine whether a particular LEA is 

eligible for these programs by referring 

to information on the Department’s Web 

site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/ 

reap.html. 

Stackable credentials means 

credentials that are part of a sequence of 

credentials that can be accumulated 

over time to increase an individual’s 

qualifications and help him or her to 

advance along a career pathway to 

different and potentially higher-paying 

jobs. 

Student achievement means— 

For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are required under section 

1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA): (1) A student’s score on such 

assessments; and, as appropriate (2) 

other measures of student learning, such 

as those described in the subsequent 

paragraph, provided that they are 

rigorous and comparable across schools 

within a local educational agency (LEA). 

For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are not required under 

section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA: (1) 

Alternative measures of student learning 

and performance, such as student 

results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, 

and objective performance-based 

assessments; (2) student learning 

objectives; (3) student performance on 

English language proficiency 

assessments; and (4) other measures of 

student achievement that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools within 

an LEA. 

Student growth means the change in 

Student Achievement for an individual 

student between two or more points in 

time. 

Sustained partnership means a 

relationship that has demonstrably 

adequate resources and other support to 

continue beyond the funding period and 

that consist of community organizations 

as partners with a local educational 

agency and one or more of its schools. 

These organizations may include faithand community-based organizations, 

institutions of higher education 

(including minority-serving institutions 

eligible to receive aid under Title III or 

Title V of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (HEA)), businesses and industries, 

labor organizations, State and local 

government entities, or Federal entities 

other than the Department. 

Systemic initiative means a policy, 

program, or activity that includes Parent 

and Family Engagement as a core 

component and is designed to meet 

critical educational goals, such as 

school readiness, Student Achievement, 

and school turnaround. 

Tier I schools means— 

(a) A Title I school that has been 

identified as in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring under section 

1116 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA) and that is identified by the SEA 

under paragraph (a)(1) of the definition 

of Persistently-lowest Achieving School. 

(b) An elementary school that is 

eligible for Title I, Part A funds that— 

(1)(i) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

(ii) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA) in reading/language 

arts and mathematics combined; and 

(2) Is no higher achieving than the 

highest-achieving school identified by 

the SEA under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the 

definition of Persistently-lowest 

Achieving School. 

Tier II schools means— 

(a) A secondary school that is eligible 

for, but does not receive, Title I, Part A 

funds and is identified by the State 

educational agency (SEA) under 

paragraph (a)(2) of the definition of 

Persistently-lowest Achieving Schools. 

(b) A secondary school that is eligible 

for Title I, Part A funds that— 

(1)(i) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

(ii) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), in reading/language 

arts and mathematics combined; and 

(2)(i) Is no higher achieving than the 

highest-achieving school identified by 

the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the 

definition of Persistently-lowest 

Achieving School; or 

(ii) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

Tiered behavioral supports means a 

continuum of increasingly intensive and 

evidence-based social, emotional, and 

behavioral supports, including a 

framework of universal strategies for 

students, school staff, and relevant 

external partners to promote positive 

behavior and data-based strategies to 

match more intensive supports to 

individual student needs. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities and 

definitions, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

73456 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Notices 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities 

and definitions only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from regulatory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

The final priorities and definitions do 

not impose significant costs on entities 

that receive assistance through the 

Department’s discretionary grant 

programs. Additionally, the benefits of 

implementing the priorities contained 

in this document outweigh any 

associated costs because they result in 

the Department’s discretionary grant 

programs selecting high-quality 

applications to implement activities that 

are most likely to have a significant 

national effect on educational reform 

and improvement. 

Application submission and 

participation in a discretionary grant 

program are voluntary. The Secretary 

believes that the costs imposed on 

applicants by the final priorities and 

definitions are to be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application for a discretionary grant 

program that is using one or more of the 

final priorities and definitions in its 

competition. Because the costs of 

carrying out activities will be paid for 

with program funds, the costs of 

implementation will not be a burden for 

any eligible applicants, including small 

entities. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

For these reasons as well, the 

Secretary certifies that these final 

priorities and definitions do not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Intergovernmental Review: Some of 

the programs affected by these final 

priorities and definitions are subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of 

the objectives of the Executive order is 

to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened 

federalism. The Executive order relies 

on processes developed by State and 

local governments for coordination and 

review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (such as braille, 

large print, audiotape, or compact disc) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available through the Federal Digital 

System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site you can view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: December 4, 2014. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28911 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2