Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) Program, 22419-22427 [2017-09897]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 16, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22419-22427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09897]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

RIN 1810-AB25
[Docket ID: ED-2015-OESE-0129; CFDA Number: 84.371C.]


Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) Program

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

ACTION: Announcement of final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
(Assistant Secretary) announces priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria under the SRCL program. These priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria replace the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the 
SRCL notice inviting applications for new awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 
2011, published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2011. The 
Assistant Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in FY 2017 and 
subsequent years as the Department ensures an orderly transition to 
future programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). We 
take this action to address an area of national need by providing 
competitive grant awards to State educational agencies (SEAs) to 
advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy skills, reading, and 
writing, for children from birth through grade 12, including children 
living in poverty, English learners, and children with disabilities.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are effective July 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Savage, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E237, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-5998 or by email: cindy.savage@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 Department will make 
competitive grant awards under the SRCL program to eligible SEAs for 
the purpose of advancing literacy skills, including pre-literacy 
skills, reading, and writing, for children from birth through grade 12, 
with an emphasis on disadvantaged children, including children living 
in poverty, English learners, and children with disabilities.
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: In this 
document, we announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria that we may require eligible SEAs to address in 
order to receive funds under the SRCL program.
    In this document, we announce three priorities. The first priority 
focuses on how SEAs will ensure that (a) the comprehensive literacy 
instruction programs funded under this grant are supported by moderate 
evidence or strong evidence and (b) local literacy plans are aligned 
with the State comprehensive literacy plan. Under the second priority, 
SEAs must describe a high-quality plan to ensure that local projects 
serve the greatest numbers or percentages of disadvantaged children. 
The third priority encourages SEAs to prioritize local literacy plans 
that align pre-literacy strategies for children aged birth through five 
with pre-literacy and literacy strategies for students from 
kindergarten through grade five.
    We also announce requirements to ensure that State literacy teams 
assess the State comprehensive literacy plans on a regular basis and 
that these plans include continuous improvement activities. In 
addition, we announce 13 definitions that clarify terms used in the 
SRCL program.
    Finally, we announce selection criteria intended to help identify 
high-quality applications. These selection criteria will assist the 
Department in determining the extent to which eligible SEAs submitting 
applications under the SRCL program will: (1) Provide support and 
technical assistance, based on an assessment of local needs, to SRCL 
subgrantees to ensure improvement in the literacy and pre-literacy 
achievement of children from birth to grade 12 and ensure effectiveness 
in addressing the needs of disadvantaged children; (2) establish an 
independent peer review process for awarding subgrants to prioritize 
awards to eligible subgrantees that propose a high-quality 
comprehensive literacy instruction program and are supported by 
moderate or strong evidence; (3) monitor subgrantees' implementation of 
interventions and practices to ensure fidelity to the local plan, as 
well as alignment between the SEA's State comprehensive literacy plan 
and

[[Page 22420]]

subgrantees' local literacy plans; and (4) award subgrants of 
sufficient size that target the greatest numbers or percentages of 
disadvantaged children, to fully and effectively implement the local 
literacy plan.
    Costs and Benefits: We have determined that these final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will not impose 
significant costs on eligible SEAs. Program participation is voluntary, 
and the costs imposed on applicants by these final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will be limited to 
paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The potential 
benefits of implementing the program will outweigh any costs incurred 
by applicants, and the costs of actually carrying out activities 
associated with the application will be paid for with program funds. 
For these reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation 
will not be excessively burdensome for eligible applicants, including 
small entities.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the SRCL program is to advance 
literacy skills, including pre-literacy skills, reading, and writing, 
for all children from birth through grade 12, with a special emphasis 
on disadvantaged children, including children living in poverty, 
English learners, and children with disabilities. Through this program, 
the Department awards competitive grants to SEAs to support subgrants 
to local educational agencies (LEAs) or other eligible subgrantees, 
including early learning providers.
    Program Authority: Section 1502 of the ESEA, as amended by the No 
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and Title III of Division H of 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Title III of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2016 (Pub L. 114-113) appropriated funds for the SRCL program 
under section 1502 of the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB. As such, the 
upcoming SRCL competition will be conducted under that authority. 
The Department notes that the ESEA, as amended in December 2015 by 
the ESSA, authorizes the Comprehensive Literacy State Development 
(CLSD) program, a program that is substantively similar to SRCL. See 
sections 2221-2224 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. To provide 
for the orderly transition to future programs under the ESSA, the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that 
apply to the SRCL program through this notice align, to the extent 
possible, with certain new statutory requirements that will apply to 
the CLSD program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicable Program Regulations: (a) The Education Department 
General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 
84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on 
Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 
180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 
part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 
part 3474.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) for this program in the 
Federal Register on June 20, 2016 (81 FR 39875). That notice contained 
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
    There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NFP) as 
discussed under Analysis of Comments and Changes.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, eight 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria.
    We group major issues according to subject matter. Generally, we do 
not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the 
law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory 
authority.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

Proposed Priority 2--Serving Disadvantaged Children

    Comments: One commenter suggested that, in the context of children 
from birth to five years old, a distinction should be made between 
infants and toddlers with developmental delays, particularly, and 
children with disabilities, generally. Another commenter advised that a 
developmental delay is not the same as a disability as it relates to 
infants and toddlers and language and early learning proficiency.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that there is a difference 
between a developmental delay and a disability as the terms relate to 
the language and literacy advancement of children from birth to five 
years old. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Improvement Act of 2004, an infant or toddler with a disability is 
defined as an individual under three years of age who needs early 
intervention services because the individual is experiencing 
developmental delays, as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments 
and procedures in one or more of the areas of cognitive development, 
physical development, communication development, social or emotional 
development, and adaptive development. Since developmental delays 
distinctly affect infants and toddlers, they should be considered 
separately from issues pertaining to children with disabilities, 
generally, when designing a comprehensive literacy instruction program.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of disadvantaged child to 
explicitly include infants and toddlers with developmental delays and 
to differentiate between an infant and toddler with a developmental 
delay and a child with a disability.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that, when 
referencing disadvantaged children in this priority, the population of 
children living in poverty should be specifically included, as are the 
populations of English learners and children with disabilities. These 
populations are particularly vulnerable to challenges in attaining the 
literacy skills that are needed to meet a State's challenging academic 
standards and for future success in college and career endeavors.
    Changes: We have revised the priority to specifically include 
children living in poverty as a group of disadvantaged children that 
applicants must serve in order to meet this priority. Additionally, we 
have specifically included this group of disadvantaged children in the 
definitions of disadvantaged child and State literacy team.

Proposed Priority 3--Alignment Within a Birth Through Fifth Grade 
Continuum

    Comments: Several commenters raised concerns that the priority did 
not sufficiently address the unique learning needs of the youngest 
children--infants and toddlers--to be served through the SRCL program, 
and they noted that the process of language and learning experiences 
are different for younger children than older children. A few 
commenters suggested that we clarify in this priority that the 
continuum of learning begins with early care and learning approaches 
and builds upon skills that lead to improving literacy for preschool to 
elementary school, and beyond.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that the building blocks of 
literacy must be introduced as early as birth and emphasized throughout 
preschool and elementary education programs. We agree that the gains 
children make in early care and learning programs must

[[Page 22421]]

be sustained and built upon throughout the preschool and elementary 
levels. Building a preschool through fifth grade system will help to 
sustain student success, while allowing for differentiation of 
interventions based on age. Further, we agree that the priority should 
be clarified to emphasize that grantees must appropriately 
differentiate their literacy interventions according to the age of 
children to be served.
    Changes: We have revised this priority to require that the high-
quality plans to align early language and literacy projects with 
programs for children in kindergarten through grade five must include a 
progression of approaches appropriate for each age group.

Requirements

    Comments: Several commenters raised concerns about the State 
comprehensive literacy plan requirement. Specifically, one commenter 
suggested that we more explicitly require professional development for 
early childhood educators. A few commenters stated that SEAs should be 
allowed to update and refine their existing State comprehensive 
literacy plans rather than be required to develop new ones. 
Additionally, one commenter requested that we require a comprehensive 
needs assessment at the State level.
    Discussion: We recognize that professional development for early 
childhood educators is important and, as stated in a response to 
commenters under Definitions, we remind commenters that the definition 
of professional development includes strategies that encompass early 
childhood education. We believe that no changes to the requirement are 
needed to ensure that SEAs meaningfully consider the professional 
development needs of early childhood education personnel.
    As to the comment that States be allowed to update existing 
literacy plans, we recognize that most SEAs will have already developed 
and implemented comprehensive literacy plans. Indeed, the FY 2010 
Striving Readers formula grant program required SEAs to establish or 
support a State Literacy Team with expertise in literacy development 
and education for children from birth through grade 12 to assist the 
State in developing a comprehensive literacy plan. While nothing in the 
proposed requirement would have precluded an eligible SEA from 
modifying its existing comprehensive literacy plan, we believe it is 
helpful to clarify that SEAs may revise an existing plan in order to 
meet the requirement. Similarly, we recognize the need for State 
comprehensive literacy plans to be informed by a recent comprehensive 
needs assessment. We believe that a comprehensive needs assessment 
conducted within the past five years would be considered sufficently 
recent.
    Changes: We have revised this requirement to clarify that SEAs may 
update their existing State comprehensive literacy plans to meet the 
State comprehensive literacy plan requirement. Additionally, we have 
added to the requirement the need for the State comprehensive literacy 
plan to be informed by a recent (conducted in the past five years) 
comprehensive needs assessment.
    Comments: A few commenters raised concerns about LEAs' capacity to 
implement the requirement for local literacy plans. One commenter 
suggested that we provide example tools or surveys to assist grantees 
and subgrantees in meeting the needs assessment responsibility outlined 
in this requirement.
    Discussion: We believe that strong local literacy plans are 
critical to the success of projects funded under SRCL. In particular, 
we believe that local literacy plans that are informed by a 
comprehensive needs assessment will support more effective strategies 
for areas of greatest concern. We recognize that some LEAs may not have 
the expertise necessary to develop strong needs assessments and agree 
that examples of needs assessment tools and surveys would be helpful. 
Accordingly, we intend to offer online resources and other technical 
assistance to FY 2017 SRCL applicants, as well as grantees and 
subgrantees.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A few commenters requested that the Department: 
Coordinate with the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to conduct a 
national evaluation of the SRCL program; require that grantees 
participate in the national evaluation; and track a set of common 
performance measures across grantees.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that it is important to 
evaluate the SRCL program to determine its effectiveness. We believe 
that in order to determine whether the implementation of the SRCL 
program contributes to positive outcomes at the local, State, and 
national levels, a national evaluation of the SRCL program that 
includes a set of common performance measures should be conducted. We 
further note that section 2225 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
calls for the Director of IES to conduct a national evaluation of the 
successor to the SRCL program, the Comprehensive Literacy State 
Development (CLSD) program, newly authorized in title II, part B of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
    Changes: We have added a requirement that requires grantees to 
assure they will only fund subgrantees that provide a written assurance 
to cooperate with a national evaluation of the SRCL program.

Definitions

    Comments: Several commenters requested that we revise the 
definition of comprehensive literacy instruction. One commenter 
recommended that we expand the definition to reflect current research 
that includes other components essential to literacy, including print 
concepts, handwriting and word processing, knowledge required to 
comprehend text, literacy motivation, and age-appropriate, diverse, 
high-quality print materials that reflect the reading and development 
levels and interests of children. A few commenters suggested that the 
definition include terminology that is consistent with the needs of 
children ages birth to five, and one commenter requested that the 
definition include a reference to dual language learners to support 
language development of early learners. Additionally, one commenter 
suggested providing examples of professional development opportunities 
that align with the definition to support meaningful, high-quality 
implementation of comprehensive literacy instruction.
    Discussion: The definition of comprehensive literacy instruction is 
taken from the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Although the SRCL program 
is authorized under section 1502 of the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, 
and, therefore, is not statutorily bound to this definition, we 
recognize the value in aligning elements of this NFP with the CLSD 
grant program. We believe that, when read in its entirety, the 
definition addresses overall needs of children from birth to grade 12, 
including dual language learners, and supports the use of research-
based, high-quality, and age-appropriate literacy instruction. Further, 
in order to allow grantees and subgrantees flexibility in determining 
the most appropriate literacy instruction for their particular 
projects, we decline to be more prescriptive on the requirements for 
the components of comprehensive literacy instruction in this definition 
or the implementation of professional development activities.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 22422]]

    Comments: Two commenters suggested that the definition of high-
quality plan does not provide sufficient information to assist grantees 
in identifying appropriate performance measures that are differentiated 
by grade span. Both commenters requested that we provide examples of 
the types of performance measures that could be included as part of a 
high-quality plan.
    Discussion: We believe that the appropriate performance measures 
for a particular project will depend on the exact nature of the 
proposed project. In order to allow grantees and subgrantees 
flexibility in determining the most appropriate performance measures 
for their particular projects, we decline to be more prescriptive on 
the requirements for performance measures in this notice. However, we 
note that any evaluation of the program will require a common set of 
performance data collected across grantees, and as such the Department 
has established four Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
(GPRA) performance measures for fiscal year 2017 for the SRCL program. 
Grantees will be required to report on those GPRA measures, which can 
be found in the notice inviting applications (NIA) for the SRCL 
competition, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that we revise the definition of 
professional development to include specific activities targeted to 
early childhood education for children birth to five years old.
    Discussion: The definition of professional development is taken 
from the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Although this program is 
authorized under section 1502 of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and, 
therefore, is not statutorily bound to this definition, we recognize 
the value in aligning elements of this NFP with the successor to the 
SRCL program, the CLSD grant program. We further believe the definition 
does not preclude an eligible SEA from conducting specific professional 
development activities for early childhood educators of children from 
birth to five years old.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A few commenters recommended expanding the definition of 
State literacy team to include, as members, individuals with other 
types of experience. Specifically, commenters requested adding 
specialized instructional support personnel; representatives from 
institutions of higher education; and representatives of the business 
community to the definition.
    Discussion: We agree that State literacy teams should consist of 
individuals with diverse professional experiences. While the proposed 
definition would not have precluded an eligible SEA from adding members 
to its State literacy team with additional expertise outside those 
areas described in the definition, we agree that States should have the 
flexibility to design their own teams as they see fit.
    Changes: We have modified the definition to further clarify that 
States have flexibility in determining if additional team members are 
needed.
    Comments: Several commenters recommended that the SRCL program use 
the definition of evidence-based in section 8101(21)(A) of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, instead of the definitions of moderate evidence of 
effectiveness and strong evidence of effectiveness in 34 CFR 77.1. In 
particular, several commenters recommended that Priority 1, the 
requirement for local literacy plans, and the selection criteria on 
State-level activities, SEA plan for subgrants, and SEA monitoring 
plans incorporate the definition of evidence-based in the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA. Additionally, one commenter emphasized the need to 
fund more programs that utilize more rigorous and independent 
evaluations.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for evidence-
based literacy interventions and, upon reflection and consideration of 
these comments, agree that the SRCL program should align its 
definitions related to evidence with definitions in the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA. Although this program is authorized under section 
1502 of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and, therefore, is not 
statutorily bound to this definition, we recognize the value in 
aligning elements of this NFP with the ESSA definition to ensure an 
orderly transition to future programs under the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA.
    At the time of the publication of the NPP, only a few months 
following the enactment of the ESSA, we did not believe that the 
Department would be ready to begin aligning programs with the ESSA 
definition of evidence-based, and we believe it is important for the 
Department's competitive programs to use a consistent approach to 
evidence-based grant-making. However, since the publication of the NPP, 
the Department issued non-regulatory guidance interpreting the ESSA 
definition,\2\ and at this point we believe we are ready to align SRCL 
with the ESSA definition of evidence-based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, however, we want the SRCL program to maintain a 
focus on literacy activities supported by the highest levels of 
evidence. In our review of existing research on literacy interventions 
for children from early childhood to grade 12, we determined that 
sufficient evidence exists at the moderate and strong levels to warrant 
an approach for this program that incorporates only the two highest 
levels of the ESSA definition of evidence-based.
    Changes: We have added definitions for the terms evidence-based, 
strong evidence, and moderate evidence that match the standards in 
section 8101(21)(A)(i)(I) and (II) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. 
We have made conforming changes to Priority 1, the requirement for 
local literacy plans, and the selection criteria on State-level 
activities, SEA plan for subgrants, and SEA monitoring plans by 
removing references to the definitions of moderate evidence of 
effectiveness and strong evidence of effectiveness in 34 CFR 77.1 and 
substituting the terms strong evidence and moderate evidence.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we noted that a definition of 
English learner is not included in the statutory language authorizing 
the SRCL program, and determined that, given the focus of the program, 
we should provide a definition of this term in the NFP. To that end, we 
have included the definition of English learner that is consistent with 
how that term is defined in section 8101 of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA.
    Changes: We have added a definition of English learner.

Selection Criteria

    Comments: One commenter recommended an additional selection 
criterion that assesses the extent to which the SEA applicant 
differentiates between interventions and practices that are appropriate 
for children birth through age five and children from kindergarten to 
grade 5.
    Discussion: We agree that early childhood education is important in 
laying the foundation for all learning, behavior, and health across a 
child's lifespan. SRCL requires that grantees ensure that at least 15 
percent of the subgranted funds are used to improve early literacy 
development of children from birth through kindergarten entry,

[[Page 22423]]

and envisions high-quality professional development to increase the 
knowledge of early childhood educators in supporting early language and 
literacy development. We agree with the commenter that it is important 
to recognize the nuances of developing early literacy skills of infants 
and toddlers, especially as they are different from the literacy skills 
of older children. We believe it will be important for the SEA's 
monitoring plan to ensure that LEAs' interventions and practices are 
differentiated and appropriate for children from birth through age five 
and children in kindergarten through grade 5.
    Changes: We have revised the SEA monitoring plan selection 
criterion to include a focus on differentiated local strategies that 
are appropriate for children from birth through age five and children 
in kindergarten through grade 5.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In the NPP, the selection criterion relating to the SEA 
monitoring plan addressed the extent to which proposed interventions 
and practices are implemented with fidelity and aligned with the SEA's 
State comprehensive literacy plan and local needs. We believe that the 
term local literacy plan should be used instead of local needs to 
reflect the language used in the requirements established in this 
document.
    Changes: We have revised the SEA monitoring plan selection 
criterion to include the term local literacy plan.

Final Priorities

    Priority 1--Interventions and Practices Supported by Moderate or 
Strong Evidence.
    Under this priority, a State educational agency (SEA) must ensure 
that evidence plays a central role in the SRCL subgrants. Specifically, 
in its high-quality plan, an SEA must assure that (1) it will use an 
independent peer review process to prioritize awards to eligible 
subgrantees that propose high-quality comprehensive literacy 
instruction programs that are supported by moderate evidence or strong 
evidence, where evidence is applicable and available, and (2) the 
comprehensive literacy instruction program proposed by eligible 
subgrantees will align with the State's comprehensive literacy plan as 
well as local needs.
    Priority 2--Serving Disadvantaged Children.
    Under this priority, an SEA must describe in its application a 
high-quality plan to award subgrants that will serve the greatest 
numbers or percentages of disadvantaged children, including children 
living in poverty, English learners, and children with disabilities.
    Priority 3--Alignment within a Birth through Fifth Grade Continuum.
    Under this priority, an SEA must describe in its application a 
high-quality plan to align, through a progression of approaches 
appropriate for each age group, early language and literacy projects 
supported by this grant that serve children from birth to age five with 
programs and systems that serve students in kindergarten through grade 
five to improve school readiness and transitions for children across 
this continuum.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for 
the purposes of the SRCL program. We may apply one or more of these 
requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
    State Comprehensive Literacy Plan: To be considered for an award 
under this program, an SEA must submit a new or revised State 
comprehensive literacy plan that is informed by a recent (conducted in 
the past five years) and comprehensive needs assessment developed with 
the assistance of its State literacy team. Additionally, the plan must 
be reviewed by the State literacy team and updated annually if an SEA 
receives an award under this program.
    Local Literacy Plan: Grantees must ensure that they will only fund 
subgrantees that submit a local literacy plan that: (1) Is informed by 
a comprehensive needs assessment and that is aligned with the State 
comprehensive literacy plan; (2) provides for professional development; 
(3) includes interventions and practices that are supported by moderate 
evidence or strong evidence, where evidence is applicable and 
available; and (4) includes a plan to track children's outcomes 
consistent with all applicable privacy requirements.
    Prioritization of Subgrants: In selecting among eligible 
subgrantees, an SEA must give priority to eligible subgrantees serving 
greater numbers or percentages of disadvantaged children.
    Continuous Program Improvement: Grantees must use data, including 
the results of monitoring and evaluations and other administrative 
data, to inform the program's continuous improvement and 
decisionmaking, to improve program participant outcomes, and to ensure 
that disadvantaged children are served. Additionally, grantees must 
ensure that subgrantees, educators, families, and other key 
stakeholders receive the results of the evaluations conducted on the 
effectiveness of the program in a timely fashion, consistent with all 
applicable Federal, State, and other privacy requirements.
    Supplement not Supplant: Grantees must use funds under this program 
to supplement, and not supplant, any non-Federal funds that would be 
used to advance literacy skills for children from birth through grade 
12.
    Cooperation with National Evaluation: Applicants must assure they 
will only fund subgrantees that provide a written assurance to 
cooperate with a national evaluation of the SRCL program conducted by 
the Department. This may include adhering to the results of a random 
assignment process (e.g., lottery) to select schools or early learning 
providers that will receive SRCL funds as well as agreeing to implement 
the literacy interventions proposed to be funded under SRCL only in 
schools or early learning providers that will receive SRCL funds.

Final Definitions

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the following definitions for 
the purposes of the SRCL program. We may apply one or more of these 
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Comprehensive literacy instruction means instruction that--
    (a) Includes developmentally appropriate, contextually explicit, 
and

[[Page 22424]]

systematic instruction, and frequent practice, in reading and writing 
across content areas;
    (b) Includes age-appropriate, explicit, systematic, and intentional 
instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, 
language structure, reading fluency, and reading comprehension;
    (c) Includes age-appropriate, explicit instruction in writing, 
including opportunities for children to write with clear purposes, with 
critical reasoning appropriate to the topic and purpose, and with 
specific instruction and feedback from instructional staff;
    (d) Makes available and uses diverse, high-quality print materials 
that reflect the reading and development levels, and interests, of 
children;
    (e) Uses differentiated instructional approaches, including 
individual and small group instruction and discussion;
    (f) Provides opportunities for children to use language with peers 
and adults in order to develop language skills, including developing 
vocabulary;
    (g) Includes frequent practice of reading and writing strategies;
    (h) Uses age-appropriate, valid, and reliable screening 
assessments, diagnostic assessments, formative assessment processes, 
and summative assessments to identify a child's learning needs, to 
inform instruction, and to monitor the child's progress and the effects 
of instruction;
    (i) Uses strategies to enhance children's motivation to read and 
write and children's engagement in self-directed learning;
    (j) Incorporates the principles of universal design for learning;
    (k) Depends on teachers' collaboration in planning, instruction, 
and assessing a child's progress and on continuous professional 
learning; and
    (l) Links literacy instruction to the State's challenging academic 
standards, including standards relating to the ability to navigate, 
understand, and write about complex subject matters in print and 
digital formats.
    Disadvantaged child means a child from birth to grade 12 who is at 
risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance 
and support, including a child living in poverty, a child with a 
disability, or a child who is an English learner. This term also 
includes infants and toddlers with developmental delays or a child who 
is far below grade level, who has left school before receiving a 
regular high school diploma, who is at risk of not graduating with a 
diploma on time, who is homeless, who is in foster care, or who has 
been incarcerated.
    Eligible subgrantee means one or more LEAs or, in the case of early 
literacy, one or more LEAs or nonprofit providers of early childhood 
education, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness in improving 
language and early literacy development of children from birth through 
age five and in providing professional development in language and 
early literacy development.
    English learner means an individual--
    (a) Who is aged 3 through 21;
    (b) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school 
or secondary school;
    (c)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native 
language is a language other than English;
    (ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native 
resident of the outlying areas; and
    (II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than 
English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of 
English language proficiency; or
    (iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other 
than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other 
than English is dominant; and
    (d) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or 
understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the 
individual--
    (i) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;
    (ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the 
language of instruction is English; or
    (iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society.
    Evidence-based, when used with respect to a State, local 
educational agency, or school activity, means and activity, strategy, 
or intervention that--
    (a) Demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving 
student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on--
    (i) Strong evidence from at least one-well designed and well-
implemented experimental study;
    (ii) moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-
implemented quasi-experimental study; or
    (iii) promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-
implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection 
bias; or
    (b)(i) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research 
findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or 
intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant 
outcomes; and
    (ii) includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such 
activity, strategy or intervention.
    High-quality plan means any plan developed by the SEA that is 
feasible and has a high probability of successful implementation and, 
at a minimum, includes--
    (a) The key goals of the plan;
    (b) The key activities to be undertaken and the rationale for how 
the activities support the key goals;
    (c) A realistic timeline, including key milestones, for 
implementing each key activity;
    (d) The party or parties responsible for implementing each activity 
and other key personnel assigned to each activity;
    (e) A strong theory, including a rationale for the plan and a 
corresponding logic model as defined in 34 CFR 77.1;
    (f) Performance measures at the State and local levels; and
    (g) Appropriate financial resources to support successful 
implementation of the plan.
    Independent peer review means a high-quality, transparent review 
process informed by outside individuals with expertise in literacy 
development and education for children from birth through grade 12.
    Moderate evidence means a statistically significant effect on 
improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least 
one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study.
    Professional development means activities that--
    (a) Are an integral part of school and LEA strategies for providing 
educators (including teachers, principals, other school leaders, 
specialized instructional support personnel, paraprofessionals, and, as 
applicable, early childhood educators) with the knowledge and skills 
necessary to enable students to succeed in a well-rounded education and 
to meet the State's challenging academic standards;
    (b) Are sustained (not stand-alone, one-day, or short term 
workshops), intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven, and 
classroom-focused; and
    (c) May include activities that--
    (1) Improve and increase teachers'--
    (i) Knowledge of the academic subjects the teachers teach;
    (ii) Understanding of how students learn; or
    (iii) Ability to analyze student work and achievement from multiple 
sources, including how to adjust instructional strategies, assessments, 
and materials based on such analysis;

[[Page 22425]]

    (2) Are an integral part of broad schoolwide and districtwide 
educational improvement plans;
    (3) Allow personalized plans for each educator to address the 
educator's specific needs identified in observation or other feedback;
    (4) Improve classroom management skills;
    (5) Support the recruitment, hiring, and training of effective 
teachers, including teachers who became certified through State and 
local alternative routes to certification;
    (6) Advance teacher understanding of--
    (i) Effective instructional strategies that are evidence-based; or
    (ii) Strategies for improving student academic achievement or 
substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of teachers;
    (7) Are aligned with, and directly related to, academic goals of 
the school or LEA;
    (8) Are developed with extensive participation of teachers, 
principals, other school leaders, parents, representatives of Indian 
Tribes (as applicable), and administrators of schools to be served 
under this program;
    (9) Are designed to give teachers of English learners, and other 
teachers and instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide 
instruction and appropriate language and academic support services to 
those children, including the appropriate use of curricula and 
assessments;
    (10) To the extent appropriate, provide training for teachers, 
principals, and other school and community-based early childhood 
program leaders in the use of technology (including education about the 
harms of copyright piracy), so that technology and technology 
applications are effectively used in the classroom to improve teaching 
and learning in the curricula and academic subjects in which the 
teachers teach;
    (11) As a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact on 
teacher effectiveness and student academic achievement, with the 
findings of the evaluations used to improve the quality of professional 
development;
    (12) Are designed to give teachers of children with disabilities or 
children with developmental delays, and other teachers and 
instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction 
and academic support services to those children, including positive 
behavioral interventions and supports, multi-tier system of supports, 
and use of accommodations;
    (13) Provide instruction in the use of data and assessments to 
inform classroom practice;
    (14) Provide instruction in ways that teachers, principals, other 
school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, and school 
administrators may work more effectively with parents and families;
    (15) Involve the forming of partnerships with institutions of 
higher education, including, as applicable, Tribal Colleges and 
Universities as defined in section 316(b) of the Higher Education Act 
of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)), to establish school-based 
teacher, principal, and other school leader training programs that 
provide prospective teachers, novice teachers, principals, and other 
school leaders with an opportunity to work under the guidance of 
experienced teachers, principals, other school leaders, and faculty of 
such institutions;
    (16) Create programs to enable paraprofessionals (assisting 
teachers employed by an LEA receiving assistance under part A of title 
I) to obtain the education necessary for those paraprofessionals to 
become certified and licensed teachers;
    (17) Provide follow-up training to teachers who have participated 
in activities described in this paragraph (c) that are designed to 
ensure that the knowledge and skills learned by the teachers are 
implemented in the classroom; or
    (18) Where practicable, provide for school staff and other early 
childhood education program providers to address jointly the transition 
to elementary school, including issues related to school readiness.
    State comprehensive literacy plan means a plan that addresses the 
pre-literacy and literacy needs of children from birth through grade 
12, with special emphasis on disadvantaged children. A State 
comprehensive literacy plan is informed by a recent (conducted in the 
past five years) comprehensive needs assessment; aligns policies, 
resources, and practices; contains clear instructional goals; sets high 
expectations for all children and subgroups of children; and provides 
for professional development for all teachers in effective literacy 
instruction.
    State literacy team means a team comprised of individuals with 
expertise in literacy development and education for children from birth 
through grade 12. The State literacy team must include individuals with 
expertise in the following areas:
    (a) Implementing literacy development practices and instruction for 
children in the following age/grade levels: Birth through age five, 
kindergarten through grade 5, grades 6 through 8, and grades 9 through 
12;
    (b) Managing and implementing literacy programs that are supported 
by strong evidence or moderate evidence;
    (c) Evaluating comprehensive literacy instruction programs;
    (d) Planning for and implementing effective literacy interventions 
and practices, particularly for disadvantaged children, children living 
in poverty, struggling readers, English learners, and children with 
disabilities;
    (e) Implementing assessments in the areas of phonological 
awareness, word recognition, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, 
fluency, and writing; and
    (f) Implementing professional development on literacy development 
and instruction.
    A literacy team member may have expertise in more than one area. 
Team members may also include, but are not limited to: Library/media 
specialists; parents; literacy coaches; instructors of adult education; 
representatives of community-based organizations providing educational 
services to disadvantaged children and families; family literacy 
service providers; representatives from local or State school boards; 
and representatives from related child services agencies.
    Strong evidence means a statistically significant effect on 
improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least 
one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study.
    Universal design for learning, as defined under section 103 of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, means a scientifically valid 
framework for guiding educational practice that--
    (a) Provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in 
the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in 
the ways students are engaged; and
    (b) Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate 
accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high 
achievement expectations for all students, including students with 
disabilities and students who are limited English proficient.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ English learner and limited English proficient have the same 
meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Selection Criteria

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the following selection 
criteria for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply 
one or more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in 
effect. In the NIA, the application package, or both, we will announce 
the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.
    (a) State-level activities.

[[Page 22426]]

    To determine the quality of the applicant's State-level activities, 
the Secretary considers--
    (1) The extent to which the SEA will support and provide technical 
assistance to its SRCL program subgrantees to ensure they implement a 
high-quality comprehensive literacy instruction program that will 
improve student achievement, including technical assistance on 
identifying and implementing with fidelity interventions and practices 
that are supported by moderate evidence or strong evidence and align 
with local needs; and
    (2) The extent to which the SEA will collect data and other 
information to inform the continuous improvement, and evaluate the 
effectiveness and impact, of local projects.
    (b) SEA plan for subgrants.
    To determine the quality of the applicant's SEA plan for subgrants, 
the Secretary considers the extent to which the SEA has a high-quality 
plan to use an independent peer review process to award subgrants that 
propose a high-quality comprehensive literacy instruction program, 
including--
    (1) A plan to prioritize projects that will use interventions and 
practices that are supported by moderate evidence or strong evidence; 
and
    (2) A process to determine--
    (i) The alignment of the local project to the State's comprehensive 
literacy plan and the local literacy plan;
    (ii) The relevance of cited studies to the project proposed and 
identified needs;
    (iii) The extent to which the intervention or practice is supported 
by moderate evidence or strong evidence; and
    (iv) The extent to which the interventions and practices are 
differentiated and are appropriate for children from birth through age 
five and children in kindergarten through grade 5.
    (c) SEA monitoring plan.
    To determine the quality of the applicant's SEA monitoring plan, 
the Secretary considers the extent to which the SEA describes a high-
quality plan for monitoring local projects, including how it will 
ensure that--
    (1) The interventions and practices that are part of the 
comprehensive literacy instruction program are aligned with the SEA's 
State comprehensive literacy plan;
    (2) The interventions and practices that subgrantees implement are 
supported by moderate evidence or strong evidence, to the extent 
appropriate and available;
    (3) The interventions and practices are differentiated and are 
appropriate for children from birth through age five and children in 
kindergarten through grade 5; and
    (4) The interventions and practices are implemented with fidelity 
and aligned with the SEA's State comprehensive literacy plan and the 
local literacy plan.
    (d) Alignment of resources.
    To determine the quality of the applicant's alignment of resources, 
the Secretary considers the extent to which the SEA will: (1) Target 
subgrants supporting projects that will improve instruction for the 
greatest numbers or percentages of disadvantaged children; and (2) 
award subgrants of sufficient size to fully and effectively implement 
the local plan while also ensuring that at least--
    (a) 15 percent of the subgranted funds serve children from birth 
through age five;
    (b) 40 percent of the subgranted funds serve students in 
kindergarten through grade five; and
    (c) 40 percent of the subgranted funds serve students in middle and 
high school, through grade 12, including an equitable distribution of 
funds between middle and high schools.
    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 these priorities, requirements, definitions and 
selection criteria, we invite applications through a notice in the 
Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

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 will have an annual effect on the 
economy of more than $100 million because the amount of government 
transfers through the SRCL program exceeds that amount. Therefore, this 
final regulatory action is ``economically significant'' and subject to 
review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. 
Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the potential 
costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this 
regulatory action and have determined that the benefits justify the 
costs.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the 
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates 
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it 
must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2017, any new 
incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset 
by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. 
Although this regulatory action is an economically significant 
regulatory action, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not 
apply because this regulatory action is a ``transfer rule'' not covered 
by the Executive order.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety,

[[Page 22427]]

and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria 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 final regulatory action does not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for 
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget 
impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as 
regulatory alternatives we considered.

Need for Regulatory Action

    These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are needed to implement the SRCL program award process in the 
manner that the Department believes will best enable the program to 
achieve its objectives of implementing effective literacy and pre-
literacy interventions and practices, at the local level, for 
disadvantaged children.

Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria will not impose significant costs 
on SEAs. Program participation is voluntary, and the costs imposed on 
applicants by the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria are limited to paperwork burden related to preparing 
an application. The potential benefits of implementing the program 
using the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are designed to outweigh any costs incurred by applicants, and 
the costs of actually carrying out activities associated with the 
application may be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, the 
Department has determined that the costs of implementation will not be 
an undue burden for eligible applicants, including small entities.

Accounting Statement

    As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the 
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the 
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of 
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the 
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory 
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal 
Government to SEAs.

      Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                            Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers.........  $357.2M.
From Whom To Whom?.....................  From Federal Government to
                                          SEAs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SRCL program will provide approximately $357,200,000 in 
competitive grants to eligible SEAs.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: May 11, 2017.
Jason Botel,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2017-09897 Filed 5-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P